IRLF 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


IN  MEMORY  OF 

PROFESSOR 
EUGENE  I.  McCORMAC 


^ 


Cr^L^— ^      * 


O 


British- American 
Discords  and  Concords 

A  record  of  three  centuries 


Compiled  by 

The  (History  Circle 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New   York  and  London 
ttbe    Imfc&erbocfter 

1918 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


COPYRIGHT,  1918 

BY 
W.  H.  GARDINER 


TCbe  ftnfcfcerbocfeer  Dress,  "flew  Eorfc 


PUBLISHERS'  FOREWORD 

THE  History  Circle  first  met  at  the 
City  Club  of  New  York  in  May,  1917. 
Its  object  is  to  study  and  present  in 
simple  form  past  national  and  inter 
national  experiences  for  such  light  as 
they  may  throw  on  present  events  and 
policies. 

The  membership  of  the  History  Circle 
is  restricted  to  American  citizens,  and 
comprises  historians  of  authority,  busi 
ness  men,  editors,  engineers,  writers,  and 
others.  A  committee  of  these  members 
has  given  labour  for  over  a  year  to  the 
preparation  of  this  monograph,  which  con 
stitutes  the  first  publication  in  the  series 
that  the  History  Circle  has  in  plan.  A 
number  of  the  professors  of  history  in  the 

iii 


iv  Publishers'  Foreword 

leading  universities  have  contributed  to 
the  work  the  service  of  their  own  research 
and  of  their  authoritative  criticisms.  The 
judgment  of  business  men  has  been  given 
in  regard  to  the  availability  of  the  mate 
rial  for  the  interest  and  apprehension 
of  the  general  public.  Editors  and  other 
literary  workers  have  contributed  their 
aid  to  the  final  shaping  of  the  material. 
The  work  of  these  contributors  and  col 
laborators  has  been  rendered  gratuitously 
and  anonymously,  but  the  publishers  are 
able  to  speak  with  personal  knowledge  of 
their  authority  and  reputation. 

The  publishers  call  attention  to  the 
letter  from  Thomas  Jefferson  to  President 
Monroe,  which  is  here  reproduced  in 
facsimile.  The  reproduction  of  the  letter 
was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  History 
Circle  by  the  Congressional  Library  in 
Washington. 

The    author    of    the    Declaration    of 


Publishers'  Foreword  v 

Independence,  writing  in  1823,  expressed 
his  hopeful  confidence  in  the  coming 
about  of  certain  conditions,  which  condi 
tions  have  now,  a  century  later,  been 
in  part  secured. 

The  text  of  British- American  Discords 
and  Concords  summarizes  the  relations 
between  Britain  and  America  during  the 
three  centuries  which  have  elapsed  since 
Englishmen  first  settled  on  the  American 
continent. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  narrative  is 
to  present  facts,  but  space  has  been 
found  to  weave  into  the  text  a  thread 
of  philosophy  and  of  human  interest 
which  prevents  it  from  being  a  mere  re 
cord  of  events,  and  which  gives  evidence 
of  the  vital  relations  of  certain  of  these 
events  to  phases  of  the  present  great  war. 

Following  the  narrative,  will  be  found  a 
list  presenting  one  hundred  and  thirty  re 
ferences  from  leading  American  historians 


vi  Publishers'  Foreword 

which  bear  out  the  statements  and  the 
conclusions  of  the  text.  The  volume 
contains  further  a  bibliography  giving 
titles  of  some  ninety  works  for  broader 
reading  on  the  subject. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  public  reception 
given  to  this  first  work  of  the  History 
Circle  will  warrant  the  publication  of 
further  monographs,  similar  in  general 
purpose  and  character. 

NEW  YORK,  Oct.  i,  1918. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  i 

THE  FIRST  EPOCH.     1607-1763    ...  5 

The  American  Colonies     ...  5 

THE  SECOND  EPOCH.     1763-1815  9 

Causes  of  the  American  Revolution. 

1763-1776  .  9 

The  American  Revolution.  1776-1783  15 
Results  in  England  of  the  American 

Revolution  .  .  .  16 
Early  Weakness  of  the  American 

Union.  1783-1793  ...  19 

Causes  of  the  War  of  1 8 1 2 .  1 793-1 812  22 

The  War  of  1812  ....  27 
The  Peace  of  Ghent,  24th  December, 

1814    .          .        VJ       •          •        "  •"  28 

THE  THIRD  EPOCH       .         .  31 

Read j  ustment s  after  the  War  of  1 8 1 2  .  31 

The  Monroe  Doctrine,  1823    •  .        •.  35 
vii 


viii  Contents 

PAGE 

British  Parliamentary  Reforms.     1832  39 

The  Caroline  Incident.     1837      •        •  41 

The  Maine  Boundary  Dispute.     1842  42 

The  Oregon  Boundary.     1845   .          .  43 

The  Mexican  War.     1847-1848           .  45 

The  Civil  War.     1861-1865       .          .  47 

The  Trent  Affair       ....  48 

The  Confederate  Raiders            .          .  50 

Situation  at  the  End  of  the  Civil  War  52 
Fenian    Difficulties    and    Citizenship. 

1868    .                              .-.  55 

The  Venezuelan  Boundary.   1895-1896  57 

Britain  and  the  Spanish  War.     1898  .  61 

CONCLUSIONS        ....  63 

A  PARTIAL  LIST  OF  CITATIONS      .  71 

A  PARTIAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  82 


FACSIMILE  OF  LETTER  OF  THOMAS 
JEFFERSON  TO  JAMES  MONROE, 
October  24,  1823  ...  38 

MAP   .         .         .         .         .         .70 


British- American 
Discords  and  Concords 


British-American 
Discords   and   Concords 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  political  isolation  of  America  is 
past.  As  a  result  of  the  attack  of  the 
greatest  medieval  autocracy  of  Europe, 
America  has  been  drawn  into  the  rapids 
of  international  politics. 

In  guiding  his  nation  through  the  cross 
currents  of  that  mighty  stream,  an  auto 
crat  can  command.  The  leader  of  a 
democracy,  however,  must  rely  on  the 
enlightened  approval  of  the  people.  Thus, 
upon  the  free  people  of  a  democracy  rests 
the  ultimate  and  unavoidable  responsi- 


2  Britain  and  America 

bility  for  its  policies.  The  conscientious 
discharge  of  this  responsibility  is  the 
price  they  must  pay  for  the  privilege 
of  continued  self-government.  To  dis 
charge  this  responsibility  properly,  free 
men  must  come  to  their  decisions  ad 
visedly,  intelligently,  and  without  pre 
judice. 

In  the  years  immediately  ahead,  Ameri 
cans  will  have  to  decide  rightly  and 
quickly  the  most  momentous  and  fateful 
problems  of  their  national  life.  The  issues 
cannot  be  avoided  or  the  responsibility 
shifted.  The  measure  of  liberty  they  can 
help  extend  to  the  world,  even  the  degree 
of  liberty  they  can  retain  for  themselves, 
will  largely  depend  on  the  intelligence, 
lack  of  prejudice,  and  the  public  spirit 
with  which  they,  in  the  near  future,  view 
their  international  affairs. 

Appreciating  the  gravity  of  imminent 
problems,  a  number  of  Americans  have 


Introduction  3 

collaborated  in  the  compilation  of  this 
monograph  on  the  past  relations  between 
America  and  Britain.  Their  hope  is  that 
the  results  of  their  collaboration  may  help 
to  an  unprejudiced  knowledge  of  these 
past  matters;  for  sound  judgments  on 
some  of  America's  present  and  future 
national  affairs  can  be  reached  only  if 
approached  with  an  open-minded  under 
standing  of  the  past. 

A  discussion  of  America's  relations 
with  Britain  may  be  divided  into  three 
epochs : 

Between  1607  and  1763  occurred  the 
establishment  in  America  of  the  Anglo- 
Celtic  race,  and  the  growth  of  the  British- 
American  Colonies. 

In  1763  the  immediate  causes  of  their 
secession  from  Britain  began  to  take 
form,  and  from  then  until  1815  ensued 
the  anti-British  period. 

Since  1815  there  has  been  a  century 


4  Britain  and  America 

of  peace  between  America  and  Britain; 
but  in  the  course  of  this  century  there 
has  been  more  than  once  threat  of  war, 
and  conflict  has  been  avoided  only  by 
mutual  understanding  and  forbearance. 


THE  FIRST  EPOCH 
1607-1763 

The  American  Colonies. 

The  history  of  the  United  States  may 
be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  patent  of 
exploration  granted  by  Henry  VII  to 
John  Cabot  on  March  5,  1496.  Cabot  is 
the  first  definitely  recorded  discoverer 
of  the  North  American  continent  along 
which  he  coasted,  thus  laying  the  founda 
tion  on  which  the  British  colonization  of 
North  America  was  built. 

Jamestown,  founded  in  1607,  was  the 
first  British  colony  on  the  continent. 
Gradually  other  settlements  were  planted 
until  the  English-speaking  people  and 
their  rivals,  the  French,  held  the  whole 
Atlantic  seaboard  from  Labrador  to  the 
Spanish  settlements  in  Florida. 


6  Britain  and  America 

To  generalize  about  all  the  British- 
American  Colonies  would  be  unsafe, 
for  there  were  many  settlements,  begun 
under  various  differing  tenets,  by  men  of 
many  creeds  and  aspirations.  There  is 
one  statement,  however,  that  will  hold 
good  for  all.  They  all  soon  came  under 
the  control  of  sturdy  Anglo-Celtic  free 
men  who  had  inherited  the  spirit  of 
Magna  Charta  together  with  that  of 
Cromwell's  rebellion  of  1642,  which  for 
ever  overthrew  for  Englishmen  the  out 
worn  theory  of  the  "  divine  right  of 
kings."  With  such  an  inheritance  they 
easily  passed  on  to  the  doctrine  that 
''Governments  derive  their  just  powers 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 

In  each  of  the  American  Colonies  an 
elective  assembly  was  formed,  but  to 
most  of  the  Colonies  the  British  King 
appointed  a  governor.  The  assemblies 
raised  the  moneys  wherewith  to  meet  the 


The  First  Epoch  7 

colonial  expenses,  including  the  salaries  of 
the  governors,  and  discussed  with  them 
the  administration  of  the  laws.  Thus  in 
America  were  reproduced  contemporary 
British  conditions,  namely,  that  the  elec 
ted  representatives  of  the  people  made 
the  laws  and  voted  the  taxes,  while  the 
King  or  his  agents  administered  the  laws. 

In  England,  Parliamentary  growth  had 
been  a  series  of  bargains  between  the 
King  wanting  money  for  private  and 
public  expenses  and  the  representatives 
of  the  people  wanting  an  ever-increasing 
voice  in  government.  The  colonial  as 
semblies  and  the  governors  followed  a 
similar  course ;  but  in  America  represen 
tative  self-government  grew  more  broadly 
and  more  rapidly  than  in  England. 

Suffrage  is  now  so  inclusive  that  it  is 
necessary  to  recall  that,  in  1775,  of  the 
8,000,000  people  in  England  only  about 
150,000,  or  2%,  had  the  power  to  elect 


8  Britain  and  America 

representatives  to  Parliament,  whereas  of 
the  3,000,000  American  Colonials  pro 
bably  over  5%  had  the  right  to  vote, 
although  this  varied  greatly  in  different 
Colonies. 

These  democratic  conditions  in  America 
and  the  public  temper  which  had  pro 
duced  them  were  incomprehensible  to 
the  reactionary  Hanoverian  George  III 
when  he  came  to  the  throne,  in  1760, 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  establish 
ing  the  British  Crown  as  an  autocracy. 
He,  therefore,  deliberately  set  out  to 
make  himself  King,  not  as  a  leader  who 
obeys  his  people  but  as  one  who  com 
mands  his  subjects.  His  attempt  to  turn 
back  the  progress  of  self-government 
among  the  English-speaking  people  re 
sulted  in  the  War  of  1776  and  the  seces 
sion  of  the  American  Colonies. 


THE  SECOND  EPOCH 
1763-1815 

Causes  of  the  American  Revolution.     1763- 
1776 

In  colonial  days  the  world  at  large 
looked  upon  Colonies  as  outposts,  the 
primary  purpose  of  which  should  be  to 
contribute  to  the  prosperity  of  the  home 
country.  But  many  Americans  and  not 
a  few  Englishmen  held  a  different  view. 
In  1754  Benjamin  Franklin  wrote: 

"...  What  imports  it  to  the  general 
state  whether  a  merchant,  a  smith,  or  a 
hatter  grows  rich  in  Old  or  New  Eng 
land?  .  .  .  And,  if  there  be  any  differ 
ence,  those  who  have  most  contributed  to 
enlarge  Britain's  empire  and  commerce, 
increase  her  strength,  her  wealth,  and 


io  Britain  and  America 

the  numbers  of  her  people,  at  the  risk 
of  their  own  lives  and  private  fortunes 
in  new  and  strange  countries,  methinks 
aught  rather  to  expect  some  preference." 

Each  of  the  American  Colonies,  having 
achieved  an  unprecedented  measure  of 
local  self-government,  had  come  to  think 
much  of  its  own  attainments,  its  own 
commerce,  and  its  own  laws.  This  is 
characteristic  of  virile  young  communi 
ties.  In  the  thirteen  American  Colonies 
it  resulted  in  each  Colony  paying  scant 
heed  to  its  neighbours  and  all  paying  even 
less  heed  to  imposts  and  mercantile 
regulations  emanating  from  England.  So 
self-centered  was  each  Colony  that  they 
would  not  join  together  even  for  mutual 
defence.  Benjamin  Franklin,  while  agent 
for  the  Colonies  in  England,  publicly 
stated  this. 

When  England  imposed  imperial  cus 
toms  duties,  American  merchants  took 


The  Second  Epoch  n 

refuge  in  smuggling ;  but  when  the  French 
and  Indians  attacked  the  western  out 
posts  of  any  Colony,  England  was  told 
that  it  was  her  duty  to  defend  her  colonial 
realm.  England  was,  therefore,  obliged 
to  incur  heavy  expenses  in  the  French 
and  Indian  colonial  wars.  The  Colonials 
often  refused  to  bear  their  share  of  these 
expenses  or  to  furnish  their  quota  of  sol 
diers;  and  this,  even  though  the  new  con 
quests  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains 
were  valuable  primarily  to  the  Colonies. 

It  was  not  unnatural  that  the  Colonials 
came  to  be  looked  upon  as  unruly  irrespon- 
sibles  who  should  either  defend  them 
selves  or  meet  part  of  the  expense  England 
incurred  in  defending  them.  The  auto 
crat  George  III,  intolerant  of  democracy 
even  at  home,  was  ill-fitted  to  handle 
the  situation.  His  ministers  were  no 
wiserf  and  at  that  time  the  King  con 
trolled  Parliament. 


12  Britain  and  America 

In  1763,  English  troops,  with  material 
assistance  from  the  American  Colonials, 
had  finally  conquered  the  French  in 
Canada,  and  all  the  north  country  passed 
to  the  English-speaking  peoples.  For  a 
little  while  it  seemed  as  though  joint 
success  in  arms  had  drawn  the  Colonies 
and  England  closer  together. 

But,  beginning  in  1763,  the  English 
Government  tried  to  raise  colonial  reve 
nue  to  offset  at  least  a  part  of  the  colonial 
expenses  England  had  had  to  incur,  by 
enforcing  trade  laws  which  for  a  hundred 
years  had  for  the  most  part  been  left 
unenforced.  This  effort  interfered  with 
the  practice  of  smuggling,  which  had 
become  general,  and  raised  much  feel 
ing  against  the  King  and  his  agents. 
After  reviving  the  trade  laws,  England 
enacted  a  new  impost  law  known  as 
the  Stamp  Act.  This  also  was  intended 
to  raise  colonial  revenue  to  help  offset 


The  Second  Epoch  13 

England's  colonial  expenditures ;  but  its 
enactment  caused  great  public  indig 
nation. 

The  heat  of  the  resulting  controversy 
between  the  Colonials  and  the  Crown 
brought  into  prominence  radicals  who 
advanced  separatist  tendencies.  Their 
protests  incensed  the  wilful  George  III 
who  persisted  with  his  blundering  retorts 
to  the  insubordinate  utterances  and  acts 
of  the  American  Colonials. 

In  1775,  about  one  third  of  the  Ameri 
can  Colonials,  led  by  radicals,  merchants 
interested  in  freedom  of  trade,  and 
independent  aristocrats  such  as  Wash 
ington  and  Jefferson,  formed  the  group 
which  ultimately  became  the  revolu 
tionists.  The  large  landholders  of  the 
middle  colonies,  merchants  injured  by 
smuggling,  and  conservatives  led  another 
third  of  the  population  opposed  to  seces 
sion.  The  remaining  third,  most  of 


14  Britain  and  America 

whom   were   middle-class   farmers,   were 
quite  indifferent  to  the  political  issues. 

It  became,  therefore,  the  task  of  the 
revolutionists  so  to  present  their  cause 
as  to  give  a  promise  of  success  to  a  move 
ment  actively  supported  by  only  a  third 
of  the  population.  The  continuation  of 
the  autocratic  acts  of  the  unpopular 
King  and  his  adherents,  and  the  over 
bearing  manner  of  his  civil  and  military 
agents  furnished  the  theme.  Thomas  Jef 
ferson,  with  his  masterly  command  of 
language,  framed  the  platform  and  drew 
up  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  In 
it  he  combined  an  idealization  of  the 
most  radical  political  tenets  then  current 
in  both  England  and  America,  with  a 
vigorous  arraignment  of  the  failures  of 
George  III  to  understand  colonial  con 
ditions,  as  evidenced  by  his  attempts 
to  coerce  the  self-governing  American 
Colonials. 


The  Second  Epoch  15 

The  American  Revolution.     1776-1783 

A  revolt  started  by  a  minority  of  the 
Colonials  was  predestined  at  best  to  a 
protracted  and  precarious  course,  with  a 
strong  probability  of  failure.  With  con 
tinued  disaffection  and  desertions  among 
his  troops,  constant  intrigue  among  poli 
ticians  behind  his  back,  and  entirely  in 
adequate  finances,  the  genius  of  George 
Washington  was  fully  tested.  That  he 
did  not  meet  prompt  and  complete  defeat 
seems  remarkable;  that  he  carried  the 
Revolution  through  to  a  successful  end 
seems  marvellous. 

The  American  Revolution  was  in  fact  a 
civil  war  fought  by  men  of  the  same  race, 
with  democracy  on  one  side  and  auto 
cracy  on  the  other.  The  radical  and 
revolutionary  American  Colonials  fought 
the  forces  of  autocracy  with  shot  and 
shell.  The}'-  were  effectively  aided  by  the 
liberal  British  across  the  sea.  In  Eng- 


16  Britain  and  America 

land,  some  army  officers  resigned  their 
commissions  rather  than  fight  the  Colo 
nials.  The  unpopularity  of  the  war 
obliged  the  King  to  supplement  his  forces 
by  hiring  Hessian  mercenaries.  British 
statesmen  entered  the  struggle  and  this 
civil  war  was  fought  in  the  British  Parlia 
ment  as  earnestly  as  on  the  battlefields 
of  America.  Indeed  it  was  won  in  Parlia 
ment  rather  than  on  the  field,  because  the 
aggressive  action  of  the  British  Ministry, 
directing  the  army  and  the  navy,  was 
from  the  outset  hampered  and  finally 
defeated  by  the  members  of  Parliament. 
The  blunders  of  the  King  and  his  minis 
ters  had  so  incensed  the  more  democratic 
people  that  Parliament  became  liberal 
and  forced  its  will  on  the  King. 

Results    in    England    of    the    American 

Revolution. 

In  the  reign  of  George  III,  England  was 
still  far  from   being   a   democracy;   its 


The  Second  Epoch  17 

8,000,000  people  did  not  have  the  power 
to  elect  representatives  to  the  House  of 
Commons  and  the  franchise  was  pos 
sessed  by  only  some  150,000  members 
of  the  landed  gentry  and  other  land 
holders  or  men  of  property.  It  is,  there 
fore,  all  the  more  remarkable  that  a 
majority  of  the  representatives  of  this 
small  electorate,  with  its  strongly  aristo 
cratic  connections,  should  ultimately  have 
sided  with  the  American  revolutionists 
against  the  autocratic  King.  And  while 
the  attainment  of  American  independence 
may  seem  to  have  been  the  greatest  result 
of  the  American  Revolution,  it  had  an 
other  result  of  great  significance.  Its  re 
action  on  the  British  Government  resulted 
in  the  final  supremacy  of  the  British 
Parliament  over  the  Crown,  thus  ending 
in  the  reign  of  George  III  the  six  hundred 
years'  struggle  since  Magna  Charta. 
The  momentous  change  of  making  the 


1 8  Britain  and  America 

Ministry  responsible  to  Parliament  instead 
of  to  the  King  was  greatly  hastened  in 
England  as  a  result  of  the  American 
Revolution.  The  fall  of  the  last  Brit 
ish  Ministry  responsible  solely  to  the 
King  placed  the  entire  government  of 
Britain  under  the  control  of  Parliament. 
From  then  on,  this  semi-hereditary,  semi- 
elective,  but  strongly  aristocratic  body 
made  the  laws  and  levied  the  taxes.  It 
designated  the  ministers  who  should 
execute  the  laws,  disburse  the  public 
funds,  and  conduct  the  government  ac 
cording  to  the  will  of  Parliament,  instead 
of  according  to  the  will  of  the  King. 

The  change  in  the  control  of  the 
Ministry  deeply  affected  Britain's  future 
colonial  policy.  We  have  seen  that  the 
autocratic  acts  of  the  King  and  his 
Ministry  caused  the  secession  and  loss 
of  the  American  Colonies.  Later,  Parlia 
ment,  though  still  aristocratic,  broad- 


The  Second  Epoch  19 

ened  the  franchise  so  that  the  House  of 
Commons  became  more  representative 
of  the  people,  rather  than  especially  re 
presentative  of  the  landed  aristocracy. 
This  resulted,  ultimately,  in  a  democra 
tic  Parliament  and  in  the  present  Com 
monwealth  of  Britannic  Nations  —  an 
alliance  of  the  six  self-governing  and 
non-tributary  nations  comprised  in  New 
foundland,  Canada,  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  South  Africa,  and  the  British 
Isles. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  lesson  learned 
by  Britain  from  the  American  Revolu 
tion  gave  just  grounds  for  George  Wash 
ington  being  subsequently  acclaimed  in 
the  British  Parliament  as  "The  Founder 
of  the  British  Empire." 

Early  Weakness  of  the  American  Union. 

1783-1793 

The  American  Revolution  was  a  revolt 
against  the  attempt  of  the  British  King 


20  Britain  and  America 

to  curtail  local  self-government.  Its  suc 
cess  naturally  stimulated  the  local  and 
separate  self-government  of  the  Colonies, 
each  of  which  became  in  theory  a  sover 
eign  power. 

In  the  well-federalized  United  States  of 
today  it  is  difficult  to  realize  that  at  the 
outset  many  States  carried  this  theory  so 
far  as  to  maintain  customs  barriers  against 
others.  It  was  the  common  opinion  that 
the  Central  Government  was  charged 
only  with  the  negotiation  of  foreign 
affairs;  but  in  fact,  even  in  these  matters 
the  Central  Government  had  no  means  of 
enforcing  the  co-operation  or  compliance 
of  the  several  States. 

At  the  very  outset  of  their  career  as  a 
recognized  nation,  the  States  individually 
did  not  adhere  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  because 
there  was  no  power  to  compel  them  to 
any  other  course  than  that  which  each 


The  Second  Epoch  21 

State  individually  chose.  Many  of  them 
harassed  the  Loyalists  still  within  their 
borders  and,  in  breach  of  the  terms  of 
the  treaty,  confiscated  their  property. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Americans 
were  indignant  at  the  conduct  of  Britain. 
They  were  justly  indignant  that  the 
north-western  forts  were  not  surrendered 
to  them  as  the  treaty  stipulated ;  and  they 
were  unjustly  indignant  because  they 
were  not  still  given  special  commercial 
consideration  as  if  they  were  still  under 
the  British  flag. 

These  irritating  conditions,  for  which 
both  peoples  were  about  equally  to  blame, 
kept  alive  in  the  different  States  a 
sharp  resentment  against  Britain.  Inci 
dentally  this  very  seriously  complicated 
the  problems  of  Washington,  Madison, 
Hamilton,  and  Franklin  who  laboured 
long  before  they  succeeded  in  establishing 
a  real  union  of  States.  The  fact  that 


22  Britain  and  America 

several  of  the  northern  States  made  an 
effort  to  associate  with  their  ratification 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  a  stipulation 
that  they  had  the  right  to  withdraw  from 
the  Union  whenever  they  might  see  fit,  is 
a  noteworthy  index  of  the  weakness  in 
their  early  bonds  of  union. 

But  the  following  sentences,  written  by 
Franklin  to  the  British  Peace  Commis 
sioner,  David  Hartley,  on  the  i6th  of  Oc 
tober,  1783,  show  that  animosity  against 
Britain  was  not  universal  among  the 
leaders  of  the  American  Revolution: 

"What  would  you  think  of  a  proposi 
tion,  if  I  should  make  it,  of  a  compact 
between  England,  France,  and  America? 
America  would  be  as  happy  as  the  Sabine 
Girls,  if  she  could  be  the  means  of  uniting 
in  perpetual  peace  her  father  and  her 
husband." 
Causes  of  the  War  of  1812.  1793-1812 

In  1793,  Great  Britain  entered  upon  a 


The  Second  Epoch  23 

war  against  France  which  lasted  almost 
continuously  for  twenty-two  years  and 
developed  into  a  death  struggle  with 
Napoleon. 

America  was  neutral,  but  out  of  the  con 
flict  developed  the  two  major  causes  of  the 
War  of  1 8 1 2 :  the  impressment  of  American 
seamen  by  Britain  and  the  Decrees  of  Na 
poleon  and  the  Orders  in  Council  of  Britain. 

During  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  commerce 
was  brisk  in  America  and  seamen's 
wages  were  higher  than  in  England. 
This  resulted  in  wholesale  desertions  from 
British  merchantmen  and  men-of-war 
whenever  they  touched  American  ports. 
The  deserting  sailors  were  furnished  with 
"first  papers"  of  American  citizenship 
at  the  very  docks,  and  such  papers  were 
passed  from  hand  to  hand  for  a  few 
dollars.  It  thus  came  about  that  practi 
cally  every  American  ship  sailing  the 
high  seas  had  among  her  crew  British 


24  Britain  and  America 

sailors  who  had  only  recently  acquired 
such  papers. 

With  knowledge  of  this,  the  British 
navy  made  a  practice  of  searching  Ameri 
can  merchantmen  at  sea  and  removing 
from  them  such  "  Britishers. "  The  Brit 
ish  warrant  for  this  was  the  claim,  held 
by  her  until  1868,  that  no  subject  of  a 
monarchy  could,  of  his  initiative,  cast  off 
his  allegiance.  On  the  other  hand  Amer 
ica,  being  especially  desirous  of  increasing 
her  population,  claimed  that  allegiance 
was  transferable  entirely  at  the  will  or 
pleasure  of  the  individual. 

While  the  desertions  and  impressment 
of  deserters,  together  with  a  number  of 
bona  fide  American  citizens,  caused  much 
feeling  in  England  and  America,  the 
restrictions  of  American  trade  by  the 
British  Orders  in  Council  incident  to 
the  Napoleonic  wars  injured  American 
interests  much  more  deeply. 


The  Second  Epoch  25 

In  November,  1806,  Napoleon  decreed 
the  ports  of  Great  Britain  closed  to  all 
foreign  shipping.  This  injured  American 
trade  and  caused  resentment.  Brit 
ain  retaliated  two  months  later  by 
ordering  all  ports  of  France  closed 
except  Bordeaux  which  was  left  open 
only  to  American  ships.  This  special 
concession  by  Britain  to  America  was 
withdrawn  ten  months  later  and  all 
continental  ports  from  the  Adriatic  to 
the  Baltic  were  closed  to  American  ship 
ping.  American  resentment  focussed  on 
Britain. 

The  liberal  Whigs  in  England  protested 
against  this  anti-American  policy.  The 
effect  of  their  protest  was  weakened  by 
the  allegation  of  Senator  Timothy  Picker 
ing  of  Massachusetts  who  asserted,  with 
out  warrant,  that  Jefferson,  his  political 
enemy,  planned  to  aid  Napoleon  in  crush 
ing  Great  Britain.  The  English  Whigs, 


26  Britain  and  America 

however,  persevered  in  their  opposition  to 
the  Orders  in  Council  which  they  feared 
would  lead  to  war  with  America.  They 
at  last  brought  the  Tory  Government 
to  their  view.  On  the  i6th  of  June, 
1812,  it  agreed  to  withdraw  its  Or 
ders  and  this  was  done  on  the  23d  of 
June — just  too  late.  Congress  had  de 
clared  war  against  Britain  on  the  i8th 
of  June. 

Thus,  the  War  of  1812  was  directly 
the  outcome  of  Britain's  struggle  against 
Napoleon,  who  in  point  of  fact  per 
sisted  in  the  maintenance  of  his  own 
Decrees  against  America's  commerce. 
The  liberal  Whigs  in  England  for  years 
had  tried  to  avoid  this  war  with  America. 
Had  there  been  a  transatlantic  cable  to 
bring  to  America  the  agreement  of  the 
1 6th  of  June,  it  is  highly  probable  that 
the  thirty  months  of  war  would  have 
been  avoided. 


The  Second  Epoch  27 

The  War  of  1812. 

To  the  United  States,  the  War  of  1812 
was  of  great  importance.  Except  for 
the  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  in 
vade  Canada,  the  land  fighting  was 
within  the  States  and  most  of  the  naval 
engagements  were  in  American  waters. 
To  England,  however,  this  war  was  a 
small  by-product  of  her  all-absorbing  life 
and  death  struggle  with  Napoleon.  She 
had  tried  to  avoid  war  by  repealing  its 
principal  cause,  her  Orders  in  Council, 
and  when  it  was  forced  upon  her,  she 
considered  it  a  minor  issue. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  the  war  the  British 
were  generally  victorious  on  land,  while 
the  superior  fighting  qualities  of  the 
infant  American  navy  gave  England 
much  concern.  But  later  the  American 
forces  won  some  signal  victories  on  land, 
while  the  effects  of  their  initial  naval 
victories  were  practically  nullified  by 


28  Britain  and  America 

the  British  blockade  of  American  ports. 
American  privateers,  however,  remained  a 
serious  menace  to  British  commerce  up  to 
the  end  of  the  war. 

Just  as  this  war  was  generally  un 
popular  in  England,  it  was  likewise  un 
popular  in  certain  sections  of  the  United 
States,  as  is  clearly  shown  by  the  Hart 
ford  Convention  held  in  1814.  Dele 
gates  from  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Connecticut  met  in  this  Convention, 
under  the  leadership  of  Senator  Timothy 
Pickering,  and  it  was  commonly  reported 
that  as  a  protest  against  the  war  they 
looked  toward  the  secession  of  New  Eng 
land  from  the  United  States. 

The  Peace  of  Ghent.  24th  December,  1814 
The  peace  which  terminated  the  War 
of  1812  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  in  history.  England,  with 
her  attention  centred  on  Napoleon,  had 


The  Second  Epoch  29 

waged  with  America  what  had  practically 
amounted  to  a  drawn  conflict. 

Both  America  and  England  claimed 
victory  and  each  demanded  concessions 
from  the  other.  England  stipulated  that 
part  of  Maine  and  the  southern  shores 
of  the  Great  Lakes  should  be  ceded  to 
her  as  a  protection  against  any  renewal  of 
naval  aggression  against  Canada.  Amer 
ica  demanded  the  abolition  of  British 
naval  visitation  and  impressment  of  sailors 
on  American  merchant  ships. 

Each  nation  flatly  refused  even  to  con 
sider  the  demands  of  the  other.  In  the 
meantime,  however,  Napoleon  had  been 
taken  prisoner,  the  European  war  had 
ceased  and  England,  weary  of  fighting, 
was  ready  to  negotiate  with  the  United 
States.  A  treaty  was  signed  which 
merely  put  an  end  to  the  fighting  and 
left  all  else  to  be  adjusted  by  peaceful 
means. 


30  Britain  and  America 

In  this  treaty,  no  reference  was  made 
to  the  claim  of  Britain  to  the  right  of 
search  of  American  vessels  on  the  high 
seas,  a  claim  which  had  been  an  important 
factor  in  bringing  about  the  war. 

The  Commissioners  agreed,  as  between 
gentlemen,  that  the  practice  should  be 
discontinued. 


THE  THIRD  EPOCH 

Readjustments  after  the  War  of  1812. 

Parliament  by  1815  had  come  into 
complete  control  of  the  Cabinet,  but  the 
franchise  in  England  was  so  restricted 
that  the  control  of  Parliament  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  Peers  and  other 
landed  proprietors.  Under  their  influ 
ence,  a  conservative  Tory  Government 
had  long  continued  in  power. 

While  the  English  Whigs  tolerated 
America  as  a  country  of  possible  promise 
when  it  should  have  grown  up,  the  Tories 
looked  upon  Americans  as  uncouth  and 
irresponsible  radicals  who  were  beyond 
the  pale  of  respectable  society. 

With  the  Tories  in  power  and  in  view 
of  what  Lord  Bryce  has  described  as 

"the  offensively  supercilious  attitude  of 
31 


32  Britain  and  America 

the  English  and  the  self-assertive  arro 
gance  of  the  Americans,"  there  seemed 
little  hope  of  a  peaceful  adjustment  of 
the  many  points  of  difference  left  after 
the  war. 

Both  sides  had  continued  their  feverish 
shipbuilding  to  control  the  Great  Lakes; 
but  in  1816  the  American  Minister  to 
London,  John  Quincy  Adams,  suggested 
to  Lord  Castlereagh,  the  British  Foreign 
Secretary,  that  limits  be  mutually  set  to 
the  naval  forces  on  the  Great  Lakes. 
At  first  the  British  refused  to  consider 
such  a  plan,  but  in  the  spring  of 
1817,  Bagot,  the  British  Minister  to 
Washington,  and  Rush,  the  American 
Acting  Secretary  of  State,  signed  the 
Rush-Bagot  agreement  reducing  arma 
ments  on  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  mini 
mum  required  for  police  purposes  against 
smugglers. 

This  notable  step  was  followed  by  the 


The  Third  Epoch  33 

treaty  of  1818,  wherein  the  fisheries  dis 
putes  were  settled,  in  the  main,  favour 
ably  to  the  claims  of  the  United  States. 
It  was  further  provided  that  the  great 
and  practically  unknown  Oregon  Terri 
tory  should  be  held  jointly  for  ten  years. 

By  the  year  1846,  the  long,  invisible, 
and  unguarded  boundary  line  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States  was  finally 
fixed.  As  England  had  ceased  to  impress 
American  seamen  of  British  birth,  and 
as  the  fall  of  Napoleon  had  rendered  the 
various  Orders  in  Council  obsolete,  the 
causes  of  the  War  of  1812  were  thus 
peacefully  adjusted  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  United  States. 

This  peaceful  adjustment  was  all  the 
more  remarkable  because,  while  it  was 
being  made  with  an  antagonistic  Tory 
Government,  there  occurred  in  Florida 
an  incident  which  of  itself  might  have 
brought  on  war. 


34  Britain  and  America 

The  Seminole  Indians  of  Spanish- 
Florida  attacked  American  troops  on  the 
border.  General  Andrew  Jackson  pur 
sued  them  into  Florida  and  seized  the 
Spanish  town  of  Saint  Marks.  Inci 
dentally  he  captured  two  British  sub 
jects,  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  whom 
he  court-martialed  and  executed  for 
having  aided  the  Indians  against  the 
Americans. 

Jackson's  high-handed  proceedings 
against  these  men  so  incensed  the  English 
people  that  the  government  was  almost 
forced  to  declare  war.  But  by  the 
patience  of  the  Tory  Minister,  Lord 
Castlereagh,  a  declaration  of  war  was 
prevented  until  further  evidence  was 
submitted.  This  additional  evidence  led 
England  to  consider  that  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  had  forfeited  their  country's 
protection  because  of  their  hostile  be 
havior  toward  friendly  America. 


The  Third  Epoch  35 

The  Monroe  Doctrine.     1823 

That  the  Monroe  Doctrine  had  for  its 
purpose  to  restrain  the  expansion  of 
European  nations  in  North  and  South 
America  is  well  known;  but  that  it  had 
its  origin  in  suggestions  from  George 
Canning,  the  British  Secretary  for  For 
eign  Affairs,  is  not  so  generally  known. 

After  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  the  auto 
cracies  of  Continental  Europe  restored  the 
royal  Bourbon  family  to  the  throne  of 
France  and,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Czar 
of  Russia,  formed  what  they  were  pleased 
to  call  the  "Holy  Alliance"  and  the 
"Quadruple  Alliance."  These  were  alli 
ances  led  by  the  monarchs  of  Russia, 
Austria,  and  Prussia  to  resist  the  demo 
cratic  tendencies  of  the  times  and  to  keep 
the  world  safe  for  autocrats. 

A  rebellion  against  the  Spanish  King 
broke  out,  and  the  French  King,  having 
joined  the  "Holy  Alliance,"  came  to  his 


36  Britain  and  America 

aid,  supported  in  turn  by  the  rulers  of  Prus 
sia,  Austria,  and  Russia.  After  a  campaign 
of  some  magnitude  in  Spain,  the  French 
overthrew  the  constitution  and  restored 
the  King  of  Spain  to  absolute  power. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  the  con 
tinental  colonies  of  Spain  in  America  had 
asserted  and  were  maintaining  their  in 
dependence.  The  Spanish  King  accord 
ingly  requested  the  further  assistance  of 
the  "Holy  Alliance"  to  help  him  to  re- 
subjugate  his  lost  colonies.  The  mem 
bers  of  the  Alliance,  with  the  exception 
of  France,  agreed  to  a  reconquest  of  the 
Latin  Americans,  as  they  phrased  it,  "in 
accordance,  with  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

But  relatively  liberal  England  saw  a 
menace  to  her  interests  in  the  proposed 
autocratic  conquest.  She,  therefore, 
sought  an  alliance  with  the  ultra-demo 
cratic  United  States  to  block  the  plans 


The  Third  Epoch  37 

of  the  ultra-autocratic  "Holy  Alliance." 
This  suggestion  from  George  Canning  to 
Rush,  the  American  Minister  in  London, 
awakened  the  keenest  interest  in  Wash 
ington,  and  President  Monroe  privately 
sought  the  advice  of  the  revolutionary 
patriots,  James  Madison  and  Thomas 
Jefferson. 

Madison  replied  that  such  co-opera 
tion  with  Britain  against  the  "Holy 
Alliance"  "must  insure  success  in  the 
event  of  an  appeal  to  arms"  and  that  "it 
doubles  the  chance  of  success  without 
that  appeal." 

The  aged  Jefferson  wrote  President 
Monroe  that  Britain's  offer  of  alliance 
should  be  accepted.  "By  acceding  to 
her  proposition,  we  detach  her  from 
the  band  of  despots,  bring  her  mighty 
weight  into  the  scale  of  free  government, 
and  emancipate  at  one  stroke  a  whole 
continent,  which  might  otherwise  linger 


38  Britain  and  America 

long  in  doubt  and  difficulty. ' '  The  author 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  added : 
"With  her  then  we  should  the  most 
sedulously  nourish  a  cordial  friendship; 
and  nothing  would  tend  more  to  knit  our 
affections  than  to  be  fighting  once  more 
side  by  side  in  the  same  cause."  x 

President  Monroe,  however,  feared  that 
the  Senate  and  the  people,  having  been 
at  war  with  Britain  within  ten  years, 
were  so  prejudiced  against  her  that  they 
would  not  endorse  such  an  alliance. 

The  United  States,  therefore,  instead  of 
accepting  the  alliance  offered  by  Canning, 
promulgated  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  This 
warned  off  all  European  nations  from 
aggression  or  fresh  colonization  in  the 
Americas,  and  to  this  Doctrine  Britain 
promptly  gave  her  support,  thus  giving 
it  weight  throughout  Europe. 

1  The  full  autograph  text  of  this  letter  is  reproduced 
herewith. 


Facsimile  Letter  of  Thomas  Jefferson 

to 
James  Monroe 

October  24,  1823 


tn** 


6  &etsr 


a,  t*4&enr\-t  rktJ  Jtti)  <rusrcjtm*t>euMf 

Jjitst**.  erxrtusivL  OT\  en*sr  V^Aitf. 


h/rit  &m/  hvoJ^At-tsrvtat- 


t&lxnvnj*  ~te>  ^Jecxmut,  /h*_  o^rmcct/  ^  'fUjfjTfcsn  ,  **r 


tfe*v/->ri*v«x  ~ti 


» 


Monticello  Oct.  24,  23. 
Dear  Sir: 

The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me  is  the  most  moment 
ous  which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my  contemplation  since  that  of  independence 
that  made  us  a  nation;  this  sets  our  compass,  and  points  the  course  which  we 
are  to  steer  thro'  the  ocean  of  time  opening  on  our  views.  And  never  could  we 
embark  on  it  under  circumstances  more  auspicious.  Our  first  and  funda 
mental  maxim  should  be  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe; 
our  2nd  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  in  Cis- Atlantic  affairs.  Amer 
ica,  North  and  South,  has  a  set  of  interests  distinct  from  those  of  Europe,  and 
peculiarly  her  own.  She  should,  therefore,  have  a  system  of  her  own,  separate 
and  apart  from  that  of  Europe.  While  the  last  is  laboring  to  become  the 
domicile  of  despotism,  our  endeavor  should  surely  be  to  make  our  hemisphere 
that  of  freedom.  One  nation,  most  of  all,  could  disturb  us  in  this  pursuit; 
she  now  offers  to  lead,  aid,  and  accompany  us  in  it.  By  acceding  to  her  pro 
position,  we  detach  her  from  the  band  of  despots,  bring  her  mighty  weight 
into  the  scale  of  free  government,  and  emancipate  at  one  stroke  a  whole  conti 
nent,  which  might  otherwise  linger  long  in  doubt  and  difficulty.  Great 
Britain  is  the  nation  which  can  do  us  the  most  harm  of  any  one,  or  all  on 
earth;  and  with  her  on  our  side  we  need  not  fear  the  whole  world.  With  her 
then  we  should  the  most  sedulously  nourish  a  cordial  friendship;  and  no  thing 
would  tend  more  to  knit  our  affections  than  to  be  fighting  once  more  side  by 
side  in  the  same  cause.  Not  that  I  would  purchase  even  her  amity  at  the 
price  of  taking  part  in  her  wars.  But  the  war  in  which  the  present  proposition 
might  engage  us,  should  that  be  it's  consequence,  is  not  her  war,  but  ours.  It's 
object  is  to  introduce  and  to  establish  the  American  system,  of  ousting  from 
our  land  all  foreign  nations,  of  never  permitting  the  powers  of  Europe  to  inter 
meddle  with  the  affairs  cf  our  nations.  It  is  to  maintain  our  own  principle, 
not  to  depart  from  it.  And  if,  to  facilitate  this,  we  can  effect  a  division  in  the 
body  of  the  European  powers,  and  draw  over  to  our  side  it's  most  powerful 
member,  surely  we  should  do  it.  But  I  am  clearly  of  Mr.  Canning's  opinion 


Uve 


nc^P  (n* 


CtvU.  eut 
^3ust*ttcfl 
oouc. 


^^tj^  t/Jt.fi^ 

^l 

-  t 
oM<*sfijJUnv>nJ> 


-.r*4l4w'  c*n</r«JC*y  :  ln^~i^^~<^<~ujtUf.e^ 
itf^ori±J^ 


that  it  will  prevent  war,  instead  of  provoking  it.  With  Great  Britain  with 
drawn  from  their  scale  and  shifted  into  that  of  our  two  continents,  all  Europe 
combined  would  not  dare  to  risk  war.  Nor  is  the  occasion  to  be  slighted, 
which  this  proposition  offers,  of  declaring  our  Protest  against  the  atrocious 
violations  of  the  rights  of  nations  by  the  interference  of  any  one  in  the  internal 
affairs  of  another,  so  flagitiously  begun  by  Bonaparte  and  now  continued  by  the 
equally  lawless  alliance,  calling  itself  Holy. 

But  we  have  first  to  ask  ourselves  a  question.  Do  we  wish  to  acquire  to 
our  own  confederacy  any  one  or  more  of  the  Spanish  provinces?  I  candidly 
confess  that  I  have  ever  looked  on  Cuba  as  the  most  interesting  addition  which 
could  ever  be  made  to  our  system  of  states.  The  control  which,  with  Florida 
point  this  island  would  give  us  over  the  Gulph  of  Mexico,  and  the  countries 
and  the  Isthmus  bordering  on  it,  as  well  as  all  those  whose  waters  flow  into  it, 
would  fill  up  the  measure  of  our  political  well-being.  Yet,  as  I  am  sensible 
that  this  can  never  be  obtained,  even  with  her  own  consent,  but  by  war,  and 
as  her  independence,  which  is  our  second  interest,  and  especially  her  indepen 
dence  of  England,  can  be  secured  without  it,  I  have  no  hesitation  at  abandon 
ing  my  first  wish  to  future  chances,  and  accepting  it's  independence  with  peace 
and  the  friendship  of  England,  rather  than  it's  association  at  the  expense  of  a 
war  and  her  enmity.  I  could  honestly  therefore  join  in  the  declaration  pro 
posed  that  we  aim  not  at  the  acquisition  of  any  of  those  possessions,  that  we 
will  not  stand  in  the  way  of  any  amicable  arrangement  between  any  of  them 
and  the  mother  country:  but  that  we  will  oppose,  with  all  our  means,  the 
forcible  interposition  of  any  other  power,  either  as  auxiliary,  stipendiary,  or 
under  any  other  form  or  pretext,  and  most  especially  their  transfer  to  any 
power,  by  conquest,  cession,  or  acquisition  in  any  other  way. 

I  should  think  it  therefore  advisable  that  the  Executive  should  encourage 
the  British  government  to  a  continuance  in  the  dispositions  expressed  in  these 
letters,  by  an  assurance  of  his  concurrence  with  them,  as  far  as  his  authority 


&JJL  t&i. 
cox,  «xr^  Zo 


goes,  and  that  as  it  may  lead  to  war,  the  Declaration  of  which  is  vested  in 
congress,  the  case  shall  be  laid  before  them  for  consideration  at  their  first 
meeting  under  the  reasonable  aspect  in  which  it  is  seen  by  himself. 

I  have  been  so  long  weaned  from  political  subjects,  and  have  so  long  ceased 
to  take  any  interest  in  them  that  I  am  sensible  that  I  am  not  qualified  to  offer 
opinions  worthy  of  any  attention.  But  the  question  now  proposed  involves 
consequences  so  lasting,  and  effects  so  decisive  of  our  future  destinies,  as  to 
kindle  all  the  interest  I  have  heretofore  felt  on  these  occasions,  and  to  induce 
me  to  the  hazard  of  opinions,  which  will  prove  my  wish  only  to  contribute  still 
my  mite  in  what  may  be  useful  to  our  country,  and  praying  you  to  accept 
them  at  only  what  they  are  worth,  I  add  the  assurance  of  my  constant  and 
affectionate  friendship  ancl  respect. 

(Signed)  Th.  Jefferson. 


The  Third  Epoch  39 

The  amazement  of  the  "Holy  Alliance" 
may  well  be  imagined.  Its  monarchs 
had  supposed  that  British  arrogance 
toward  the  lost  American  Colonies  and 
American  bumptiousness  toward  a  cast- 
off  rule  had  kept  keen  the  hatreds  en 
gendered  by  two  wars.  And  yet  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  new  democracies  of 
southern  America  all  the  English-speak 
ing  peoples,  acting  on  British  suggestion, 
had  joined  hands  in  promulgating  and  en 
dorsing  the  American  Monroe  Doctrine. 

The  "Holy  Alliance "  gave  up  its  aggres 
sive  plans  to  resub jugate  Spain's  lost  colo 
nies.  The  Western  Hemisphere  had  been 
made  safe  for  democracy  by  the  joint  ac 
tion  of  all  the  English-speaking  peoples. 

British  Parliamentary  Reforms.     1832 

Prior  to  1830,  the  steam-engine  and  the 
locomotive  had  been  invented  in  England. 
The  steam-engine  changed  manufacture 


40  Britain  and  America 

from  the  manual  work  of  the  artisan  at 
home  or  in  his  shop  to  the  wholesale 
production  of  the  factory.  In  turn, 
railroads  made  it  possible  cheaply  to 
supply  industrial  centres  with  raw  ma 
terials  for  the  factories  and  food  for 
the  factory  hands.  Thus  in  the  first 
third  of  the  nineteenth  century  great 
industrial  communities  were  built  up 
under  entirely  novel  conditions  of  living. 
After  having  been  in  the  minority  for 
twenty-five  years,  the  liberal  Whigs,  in 
1830,  gained  control  of  Parliament  and 
immediately  set  out  to  reform  that  body. 
In  two  years  they  succeeded  in  extend 
ing  the  franchise  among  the  growing  in 
dustrial  classes  so  that  the  House  of 
Commons  became  more  representative  of 
the  people.  Eventually,  as  the  popular 
power  of  the  elective  House  of  Commons 
grew,  this  branch  of  Parliament  came  so 
to  overshadow  the  hereditary  House  of 


The  Third  Epoch  41 

Lords    that    the    latter 's    powers    finally 
became  in  practice  merely  advisory. 

By  these  and  later  Parliamentary  re 
forms  introduced  by  the  liberal  leaders, 
the  people  came  to  control  the  House  of 
Commons,  which  itself  controlled  the 
Ministry  or  Administration  of  the  govern 
ment.  In  turn,  the  Ministry  lead  the 
House  of  Commons  in  controlling  the 
House  of  Lords  through  its  power  to  cause 
the  appointment  of  new  lords.  These 
progressive  changes  produced  in  Great 
Britain  a  government  as  democratic  as 
that  which  the  United  States  had  estab 
lished  more  than  fifty  years  earlier  when 
the  Constitution  was  enacted. 

The  ' '  Caroline ' '  Incident.     1837 

While  the  Parliamentary  reforms  were 
being  evolved,  America  and  Britain 
passed  through  some  acute  controversies, 
any  one  of  which  might  have  precipitated 


42  Britain  and  America 

war  between  peoples  less  fundamentally 
in  accord  with  each  other. 

In  1837,  during  the  Canadian  insurrec 
tions,  some  people  operating  from  the 
American  shore  used  a  small  vessel  called 
the  Caroline  to  help  Canadian  agitators 
on  the  Niagara  River.  Canadian  soldiers 
invaded  the  American  shore,  burned  the 
Caroline,  and  in  the  fracas,  killed  an 
American.  While  these  individuals  had 
no  right  to  aid  the  Canadian  agita 
tors,  the  soldiers,  in  their  reprisal,  had 
in  turn  illegally  invaded  the  territory 
of  the  United  States.  These  events 
aroused  indignation  in  both  Britain  and 
America;  but  when  the  facts  became 
generally  known  both  countries  dismissed 
the  case. 

The  Maine  Boundary  Dispute.     1842 

As  the  Maine  boundary  had  been  left 
unsettled  ever  since  the  Treaty  of  1783, 


The  Third  Epoch  43 

Britain  sent  Lord  Ashburton  to  Wash 
ington  to  settle  it.  His  personal  com 
mission  to  do  this  was  a  noteworthy 
compliment  to  America,  as  he  was  the 
Whig  who  in  1808  had  most  firmly  con 
tended  for  American  shipping  rights. 

The  settlement  was  accomplished  in 
four  months  by  the  Webster-Ashburton 
treaty,  in  the  conduct  of  which  Webster 
showed  great  shrewdness  in  overcoming 
the  determined  opposition  of  the  Governor 
of  Maine,  while  Lord  Ashburton  displayed 
so  conciliatory  a  spirit  that  he  afterwards 
was  roundly  denounced  in  Canada  as 
having  yielded  too  much  to  the  United 
States. 

The  Oregon  Boundary.     1845 

Hardly  had  the  Maine  boundary  been 
settled,  when  the  most  ominous  cry  yet 
raised  threatened  to  bring  war  between 
the  two  countries.  The  United  States, 


44  Britain  and  America 

after  having  offered  to  compromise  on 
the  forty-ninth  parallel,  began  to  claim 
the  Oregon  territory  as  far  north  as  the 
parallel  of  54°  40'.  "Fifty-four  forty  or 
fight "  became  a  popular  rallying  cry  of  the 
party  that  elected  President  Polk  in  1844. 

It  may  be  that  this  slogan  was  used 
merely  as  a  political  platform  on  which  to 
get  elected,  but  not  to  be  observed  when 
it  had  served  its  purpose;  or,  perhaps, 
Polk,  as  President,  saw  the  case  in  a 
truer  light.  At  any  rate,  he  suggested  to 
the  British  that  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
would  make  a  satisfactory  basis  for  a 
final  settlement,  as  indeed  his  predecessor, 
Tyler,  had  suggested. 

The  British  contended  for  more  terri 
tory;  and  Pakenham,  in  an  unnecessarily 
brusque  reply,  rejected  Polk's  proposal. 
Thereupon,  Polk  indicated  very  clearly 
that  the  United  States  would  not  dis 
cuss  the  matter  further.  Negotiations 


The  Third  Epoch  45 

were  dropped  and  Congress  was  called  on 
to  make  preparations  for  sustaining  Amer 
ican  claims  in  the  Oregon  region.  Paken- 
ham's  refusal  was  not  upheld  by  the 
British  Government;  and,  in  1846,  the 
boundary  proposed  by  Polk  was  accepted. 
The  habit  of  adjusting  their  differences 
by  peaceful  compromises  was  being  de 
veloped  between  Britain  and  the  United 
States. 

The  Mexican  War.     1847-1848 

In  the  meantime  the  United  States 
was  steadily  pushing  to  the  westward 
by  successive  waves  of  migration.  As 
part  of  this  expansion,  the  Republic  of 
Texas,  broken  off  from  Mexico,  had  been 
permitted  to  enter  the  Union.  The 
Mexican  War  was  concluded  in  1848,  and 
California,  with  the  adjacent  territories, 
was  taken  from  Mexico. 

In  this  series  of  events  the  British 


46  Britain  and  America 

Government  scarcely  observed  the  same 
spirit  of  fairness  and  co-operation  that 
had  marked  its  conduct  in  regard  to 
the  disputes  over  the  Canadian  bound 
aries. 

Both  President  Polk  and  Lord  Palmer- 
ston,  the  British  Premier,  were  aggres 
sive  expansionists.  Palmerston  considered 
the  expansion  of  the  United  States  a 
possible  future  menace  to  British  trade 
supremacy.  The  tenor  of  the  times  was 
competitive  rather  than  co-operative. 
Britain,  therefore,  frowned  on  accre 
tions  to  the  United  States  and  was  busy 
with  intrigue  in  Mexico  and  Europe,  to 
prevent,  first,  the  annexation  of  Texas 
and  later,  the  acquisition  of  California. 
She  even  went  so  far  as  to  urge  France 
to  co-operate  in  preventing  the  expan 
sion  of  the  United  States  by  a  Franco- 
British  guarantee  of  the  integrity  of 
Mexico, 


The  Third  Epoch  47 

The  Civil  War.     1861 

The  aristocratic  and  conservative  classes 
in  Europe  thought  they  foresaw  the 
breaking  up  of  democracy  when  the 
United  States  was  sundered  by  civil  war. 
In  England,  the  adherents  of  the  old 
world  regime  leaned  to  the  Confederacy, 
while  the  admirers  of  democracy  favoured 
the  Union.  The  middle  course  attempted 
by  the  British  Government  throughout 
the  war  reflected  this  division  of  opinion 
in  England. 

Within  four  weeks  after  the  begin 
ning  of  hostilities,  Britain  declared  her 
neutrality  ''between  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  and  certain  States 
styling  themselves  the  Confederate  States 
of  America."  The  people  of  the  Union 
States  interpreted  this  prompt  recogni 
tion  of  belligerency  as  an  espousal  of  the 
Confederate  cause  and  were  greatly  in 
censed.  They  themselves,  however,  by 


48  Britain  and  America 

declaring  a  blockade  against  the  Con 
federacy  and  by  a  subsequent  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  recognized  the  status 
of  the  Confederacy  as  that  of  a  belliger 
ent;  and  they  thus  confirmed  the  propri 
ety  of  the  position  taken  by  the  British 
Government.  The  Confederate  States, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  indignant  that 
Britain  withheld  from  the  Confederate 
Government  full  recognition  as  a  sover 
eign  power. 

The  "Trent"  Affair. 

Having  been  recognized  as  a  belliger 
ent  by  both  Britain  and  France,  the 
Confederacy  appointed  commissioners  to 
these  countries — James  M.  Mason  to 
Great  Britain  and  John  Slidell  to  France. 
After  running  the  Federal  blockade  to 
Cuba,  these  commissioners  sailed  for 
England  on  the  British  mail  steamer 
Trent;  but  the  United  States  warship 


The  Third  Epoch  49 

San  Jacinto,  under  Captain  Wilkes, 
stopped  the  Trent  on  the  high  seas 
and  took  off  the  two  Confederate  com 
missioners. 

There  was  such  enthusiasm  in  the 
Union  over  this  act  that  Congress  gave 
Captain  Wilkes  a  vote  of  thanks  and  a 
silver  service.  But  Britain  pointed  out 
the  similarity  between  his  act  and  her 
own  visitations  and  seizures  which  had 
contributed  to  bringing  on  the  war 
of  1812.  She  emphasized  the  fact  that 
she  had  discontinued  seizures  thereafter, 
and  that  in  1858  she  had  formally  agreed 
they  were  not  to  be  repeated.  President 
Lincoln  admitted  the  propriety  of  this 
claim  and  the  Confederate  commissioners 
were  released.  By  his  ability  to  judge 
the  facts  and  stand  out  against  popular 
clamour,  Lincoln  thus  avoided  a  possible 
clash  threatened  by  Britain  on  a  mat 
ter  which  many  Americans  have  long 


50  Britain  and  America 

held  against  her  as  an  index  of  her  partial 
ity  to  the  Confederacy. 

The  Confederate  Raiders. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States, 
as  a  sovereign  power  engaged  in  quelling  a 
rebellion,  sought  to  have  warships  built 
in  Great  Britain ;  and  there  is  little  doubt 
but  that  it  was  within  the  law  in  so  doing. 

The  Confederacy  or  Confederate  agents 
had  a  number  of  ocean-going  blockade 
runners  and  raiders  built  in  England. 
But  as  the  Confederacy  was  never  recog 
nized  as  a  sovereign  power,  the  agents 
of  the  Federal  Government  made  such 
representations  to  the  British  Government 
that  the  latter  attempted  to  prevent  the 
sailing  of  these  vessels ;  be  it  said,  however, 
that  for  various  reasons  their  attempts 
were  often  unsuccessful. 

On  Lake  Erie,  the  Confederates  carried 
on  such  depredations  from  Canadian 


The  Third  Epoch  51 

bases  that  the  Rush-Bagot  agreement  of 
1817  to  leave  the  Great  Lakes  free  of 
warships  was  threatened  with  cancella 
tion.  In  the  Pacific,  the  Confederate 
ship  Shenandoah  was  enabled  to  destroy 
the  American  whaling  fleet  because  of 
illegitimate  assistance  given  by  Australia, 
while  British-built  Confederate  raiders 
nearly  drove  Union  merchantmen  from 
the  Atlantic. 

These  depredations  upon  Union  vessels 
were  charged  by  the  Union  directly  to 
the  British  Government.  It  was  claimed 
not  only  that  Britain  was  insincere  in 
her  perfunctory  efforts  to  stop  them, 
but  that  she  actually  rejoiced  in  them. 
Naturally,  this  resulted  in  intense  feeling 
against  the  British  Government. 

The  case  of  the  Alabama  became  especi 
ally  notorious.  This  vessel  was  built  in 
Great  Britain  and  set  sail  just  before  the 
arrival  of  an  order  from  Earl  Russell,  the 


52  Britain  and  America 

British  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  to 
have  her  held.  She  received  her  arma 
ment  in  the  Azores  from  British  sources 
and  set  out  on  a  remarkably  successful 
career  as  a  commerce  destroyer.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  pro 
tested  and  charged  Britain  with  re 
sponsibility  for  the  depredations  of  the 
Alabama. 

Situation  at  the  End  of  the  Civil  War. 

While  countenancing  the  Confederacy 
in  what  the  latter  esteemed  as  its  strug 
gle  for  self-government,  Britain  had  not 
helped  it  in  a  large  way.  Consequently, 
at  the  close  of  the  war  many  of  the 
Confederate  leaders  condemned  England 
for  her  partiality  to  the  Union. 

The  Union  States  also  were  intensely 
bitter  against  England,  holding  that  she 
had  been  most  reprehensible  in  promptly 
recognizing  what  they  considered  as  only 


The  Third  Epoch  53 

the  belligerency  of  disloyal  rebels.  It 
was  alleged  furthermore  that  by  subse 
quent  actions  and  inactions  the  British 
Government  had  injured  the  people  and 
Government  of  the  United  States  in 
dividually  and  nationally  to  an  extent 
which  could  not  be  met  by  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars. 

But  in  spite  of  its  bitter  feeling  and  in 
spite  of  having  at  its  command  the 
greatest  veteran  and  victorious  army  and 
navy  in  the  world,  the  United  States 
settled  its  differences  with  Britain  by 
arbitration.  The  Treaty  of  Washing 
ton  was  drawn  up  in  1871,  establishing 
new  rules  of  neutrality.  Britain  agreed 
to  be  judged  by  these  new  rules  for 
acts  incident  to  the  Alabama  commit 
ted  years  before  the  establishment  of 
the  rules.  The  United  States  received 
$15,500,000  and  paid  British  claims 
amounting  to  nearly  $2,000,000. 


54  Britain  and  America 

To  adjudicate  an  offence  under  laws 
made  after  the  commission  of  the  offence 
is  contrary  to  one  of  the  fundamentals 
of  our  law.  That  Britain  agreed  to  this 
is  the  strongest  evidence  of  her  desire  to 
bury  the  differences  which  had  arisen  out 
of  the  Civil  War. 

It  should  be  noted,  moreover,  that 
when  the  democracy  of  the  United  States 
came  triumphantly  through  the  fiery 
ordeal  of  the  Civil  War,  British  liberals 
were  quick  to  point  the  example,  and  the 
victory  of  the  American  Union  helped 
still  further  to  democratize  Britain. 

This  victory  was  of  further  importance 
to  Britain  because  it  proved  that  a  large 
federal  union  of  states  or  provinces  could 
be  made  durable.  It  set  a  practical  ex 
ample  for  the  organization  of  Canada, 
Australia,  and  South  Africa  as  federated 
nations. 

One  may,  therefore,  say  advisedly  that 


The  Third  Epoch  55 

not  only  was  George  Washington  "the 
founder  of  the  British  Empire,"  but 
that  the  United  States  has  since  been 
to  a  greater  extent  the  exemplar  and 
pathfinder  of  the  British  Dominions  than 
has  been  Great  Britain  herself — a  point 
of  view  often  novel  to  that  old  type  of 
insular  Englishman  who  so  distressingly 
misunderstands  and  misrepresents  his 
own  country. 

Fenian  Difficulties  and  Citizenship.  1868 
While  the  difficult  negotiations  which 
led  up  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington  in 
1871  were  being  conducted,  the  situation 
became  more  complicated  by  the  up 
risings  of  Fenians  in  Ireland.  These  Fe 
nians  had  many  kinsfolk  who  had  left 
Ireland  because  of  the  potato  famines  of 
1848-50  and  had  since  become  American 
citizens.  In  America  they  attained  so 
much  political  influence  that  politicians 


56  Britain  and  America 

seeking  election  found  it  profitable  to 
" twist  the  British  lion's  tail,"  and  they 
persistently  did  this  to  the  great  anxiety 
of  American  statesmen. 

Certain  Irish-Americans  with  Fenian 
affiliations  aided  and  abetted  their  breth 
ren  in  many  ways  against  Britain 
in  Ireland  and  carried  their  scheming 
into  Canada.  Some  of  the  more  ven 
turesome  of  them  even  returned  to  Ire 
land  bent  on  aiding  the  uprising  from 
behind  the  shield  of  their  American 
citizenship.  Those  who  ran  foul  of  the 
British  law  were  taken  in  charge  as 
British  subjects,  for  Britain  had  not 
yet  conceded  to  her  subjects  the  right 
to  cast  off  their  individual  allegiance  to 
her  even  if  they  went  through  the  form 
of  becoming  citizens  of  another  country. 
The  principles  involved  were  similar 
to  those  incident  to  the  impressments 
preceding  the  War  of  1812. 


The  Third  Epoch  57 

The  United  States  protested  on  behalf 
of  her  Irish- American  citizens,  and  not 
only  secured  their  recognition  as  Ameri 
cans  but  thereby  induced  Britain  to  ex 
tend  to  her  subjects  the  right  to  throw  off 
their  allegiance  to  her  when  they  became 
citizens  of  any  other  country. 

This  act  was  a  remarkable  British  con 
cession  to  the  American  idea  of  democratic 
citizenship;  and  it  is  characteristic  of  the 
conditions  which  justify  the  claim  that 
Britain  long  ago  abandoned  the  ways  of 
autocracy  and  has  in  reality  a  thoroughly 
democratic  government. 

The  Venezuelan  Boundary.     1895-1896 

The  dispute  over  the  Venezuelan  bound 
ary  shows  most  clearly  that  democracies 
as  well  as  autocracies  can  be  rushed  into 
war  against  each  other  merely  by  the 
ill-advised  sayings  of  their  chosen  leaders 
and  against  the  intentions  of  the  peoples, 


58  Britain  and  America 

unless  they  have  an  informed  and  in 
telligent  public  opinion  on  international 
politics. 

For  many  decades,  the  boundary  be 
tween  British  Guiana  and  Venezuela 
had  been  in  dispute.  Venezuela  had 
persistently  urged  that  it  be  fixed  by 
arbitration,  but  Britain  had  not  acqui 
esced;  and  Venezuela  alleged  that  Brit 
ish  settlement  was  meanwhile  pushing 
into  territory  claimed  by  Venezuela. 

The  United  States  had  repeatedly 
urged  Britain  to  act  on  this  matter, 
but  it  seemed  destined  to  perennial 
postponement. 

Suddenly,  the  British  Premier,  Lord 
Salisbury,  received  a  peremptory  note 
from  President  Cleveland,  reviewing  the 
dispute,  pointing  out  the  interest  of  the 
United  States  in  its  settlement  because 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  demanding 
in  threatening  terms  the  immediate  sub- 


The  Third  Epoch  59 

mission  of  the  whole  matter  to  arbitration. 
The  very  able  but  irascible  old  Tory 
bristled  at  Cleveland's  terms  and  especi 
ally  at  the  sweeping  claims  advanced 
for  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Lord  Salis 
bury  replied  by  two  simultaneous  notes. 
The  first  categorically  denied  the  Ameri 
can  claims  for  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
while  the  second,  for  the  first  time,  pre 
sented  certain  British  views  on  the 
Venezuelan  dispute  and  closed  by  refus 
ing  to  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration. 

President  Cleveland  laid  the  situation 
before  Congress  which  promptly  granted 
his  request  that  it  provide  for  an  American 
Commission  to  investigate  and  report  on 
the  boundary. 

His  message  to  Congress  was  couched 
in  such  language  that  the  two  branches 
of  the  Anglo-Celtic  civilization  suddenly 
found  themselves,  to  their  unutterable 
amazement,  apparently  on  the  point  of 


60  Britain  and  America 

war;  and  all,  forsooth,  over  a  few  miles 
of  South  American  boundary  of  remote 
interest  to  either.  Yet,  on  consideration 
by  the  peoples,  it  all  simmered  down  to 
an  arrogant  and  aggressive  statement 
haughtily  repelled.  While  jingoes  and 
Tories  vituperated,  most  people  seemed 
amazed  that  the  controversy  had  arisen 
and  were  chiefly  concerned  that  it  be 
peacefully  settled. 

So  close  had  the  myriad  personal  ties 
become  between  Americans  and  Britishers 
that  the  exchange  of  their  views  quickly 
resulted  in  mutual  understanding.  The 
Venezuelan  boundary  was  soon  settled  by 
arbitration,  and  another  British-Ameri 
can  discord  passed  harmlessly  into  history. 

Before  its  final  settlement,  however, 
the  incident  produced  a  noteworthy  result. 
A  wholesome  lesson  in  public  policy  had 
been  taught  by  the  fact  that  the  explosive 
utterances  of  their  chosen  Executives 


The  Third  Epoch  61 

had  nearly  thrown  the  two  halves  of  the 
English-speaking  peoples  into  a  destruc 
tive  war. 

To  guard  against  sudden  ruptures  in 
the  future,  a  general  arbitration  treaty 
was  drafted  by  the  representatives  of 
both  nations  and  was  submitted  to  the 
American  Senate.  The  Senate,  however, 
as  it  still  reflected  the  anti-British  feel 
ings  which  the  Venezuelan  episode  had 
re-awakened  in  many  people,  withheld 
its  ratification  of  this  treaty.  But  after 
eighteen  more  years  had  passed  a  com 
prehensive  Peace  Treaty  was  finally 
ratified  by  both  nations. 

Britain  and  the  Spanish  War.     1898 

Within  two  years  of  the  close  of  the 
Venezuelan  controversy  the  real  similarity 
of  standards  existing  between  America 
and  Britain  was  shown  during  the  Span 
ish  War. 


62  Britain  and  America 

Continental  Europe,  under  the  leader 
ship  of  Germany,  was  antagonistic  to  the 
United  States;  but  Britain  faced  Europe 
as  the  champion  of  America.  Nor  did 
she  confine  herself  to  giving  merely  moral 
support. 

When  Admiral  Dewey's  fleet  had  cap 
tured  Manila,  it  was  suddenly  threatened 
by  a  more  powerful  German  fleet  sent 
there  in  the  hope  that  a .  favourable 
opportunity  might  arise  to  seize  the 
Philippines  for  Germany.  But  the  Eng 
lish  Admiral  interposed  his  fleet  between 
those  of  Germany  and  America  and  told 
the  German  in  effect  that  his  first  shot  at 
an  American  warship  would  be  answered 
by  the  British  fleet. 

Since  then  all  differences  between  Brit 
ain  and  the  United  States  have  been 
settled  by  most  amicable  discussion  and 
in  a  full  realization  of  their  common 
tenets. 


Conclusions  63 

CONCLUSIONS 


We  have  passed  in  brief  review  the 
most  salient  common  actions  and  re 
actions  of  the  two  great  branches  of  the 
English-speaking  people.  We  have  seen 
Britishers  transplant  to  America's  soil 
the  seedlings  of  English  democracy  and 
we  have  seen  how,  in  the  freer  air  of  the 
New  World,  these  outgrew  their  parent 
counterparts  left  in  England. 

Whether  in  England  or  in  America, 
the  struggle  of  the  people  and  of  their 
representative  leaders,  who  frequently 
were  liberal  aristocrats,  has  always  been 
toward  the  same  goal — personal  liberty 
for  all  from  autocratic  rule. 

When  the  Hanoverian  George  III 
attempted  to  make  himself  a  British 
autocrat,  the  American  Britishers  he  op 
pressed  revolted  and  their  struggle  event 
ually  enlisted  the  support  of  British 
liberals  in  Parliament  who  helped  them 
win  their  independence  from  the  govern- 


64  Britain  and  America 

ment  of  the  would-be  autocrat.  But  note 
the  sequel. 

Because  he  had  the  ignorant  temerity 
to  try  to  turn  back  the  tide  of  English- 
speaking  self-government  in  America, 
the  British  Parliament  took  from  him  and 
unto  itself  the  supreme  power  to  conduct 
the  British  Government  by  controlling 
the  Ministry;  and  thus  Britain,  though 
still  retaining  the  outward  forms  of  a 
monarchy,  grew  in  time  into  as  true 
a  democracy  as  is  the  United  States. 

The  story  of  the  American  Revolution 
would  indeed  have  been  a  noble  epic  if 
that  war  had  really  been  as  it  is  taught 
in  many  American  school  histories — if 
George  Washington,  the  faultless  hero, 
had  been  surrounded  only  by  noble  and 
harmonious  patriots;  if  he  had  lead  a 
united  people  against  a  nation  of  tyrants ; 
if  this  devoted  band  had  had  to  fight 
against  the  concentrated  wrath  of  the 
mightiest  military  power  of  the  world; 
if  they  had  repeatedly  triumphed  over 
all  the  armies  sent  to  overwhelm  them; 


Conclusions  65 

and  finally  if  they  had  achieved  a  splendid 
victory  and  with  it  liberty  from  the 
tyrant  England.  Such  is  the  fanciful 
tale  which  has  thrilled  American  children 
and  has  coloured  in  later  life  all  of  their 
thought  of  England. 

But  how  contrary  is  all  of  this  to  the 
facts,  and  how  unjust  is  it  to  the  great 
leader  who  is  recognized  throughout  the 
English-speaking  world  as  one  of  the 
greatest  men  yet  born  of  the  Anglo- 
Celtic  race.  The  true  tale  is  nobler 
still. 

George  Washington  had  the  support 
not  only  of  Americans  but  of  the  best 
minds  in  England;  he  was  opposed  not 
only  by  British  autocracy  but  by  the 
reactionaries  in  America;  he  not  only 
achieved  America's  independence  from 
England,  but  he  liberated  both  America 
and  England  from  the  rule  of  an  auto 
cratic  King;  he  not  only  founded  the 
American  Commonwealth  of  States,  but 
the  example  he  thus  set  showed  Britain 
how  to  evolve  the  Britannic  Common- 


66  Britain  and  America 

wealth  of  Nations.  He  was  not  only 
"the  Father  of  his  Country, "  he  was  also 
"the  Founder  of  the  British  Empire." 
Yet  even  this  dual  r61e  gives  him  and 
his  fellow  patriots  but  half  their  due, 
for  they,  more  than  any  other  group  of 
men,  accelerated  the  growth  of  modern 
democracy,  English-speaking  democracy, 
the  democracy  after  which  are  fashioned 
all  great  modern  democracies. 

Justice,  therefore,  requires  that  in 
America  we  give  to  Washington  and  his 
associates  not  merely  the  credit  due  them 
for  their  accomplishments  for  America, 
but  that  broader  measure  of  credit  ac 
corded  them  by  Britain  for  what  they 
have  done  for  all  English-speaking  peo 
ples.  And,  simultaneously,  we  should 
give  proper  credit  to  the  British  origins 
of  American  democracy:  to  the  "Great 
Commoner,"  William  Pitt,  and  to  his 
followers,  who  supported  the  cause  of  the 
Colonies  under  very  trying  circumstances; 
to  the  liberal  Englishmen  who  aided 
America  to  her  independence;  and  to  the 


Conclusions  67 

whole  race  which  as  a  result  has  evolved 
English-speaking  democracy. 

The  joint  heritage  and  common  duty 
such  antecedents  have  transmitted  to  all 
the  English-speaking  peoples  are  clearer 
today  than  ever  before. 

We  have  seen  how  America  fought 
England  again  in  1812  because  she  thought 
England  was  again  oppressing  her  in 
trade  and  in  the  persons  of  her  naturalized 
citizens;  and  how,  while  at  war,  the  two 
nations  made  peace  without  concessions 
and  gradually  in  after  years  peacefully 
composed  the  differences  over  which 
they  had  fought. 

Since  then,  the  century  of  British- 
American  peace  with  its  discords  and 
concords  has  gone  into  history.  Its 
obvious  lesson  is  that  two  great  powers, 
having  similar  tenets,  can  learn  to 
make  their  adjustments  with  each  other 
peacefully;  always  provided,  that  they 
desire  to  understand  each  other,  that 
they  desire  peace  more  than  war  and 
that  they  desire  above  all  that  justice 


68  Britain  and  America 

be  done.  Such  is  the  lesson  of  the 
concords. 

But  the  discords  of  the  century  of 
peace  carry  a  deeper  lesson.  From  them 
we  learn  that  two  nations,  of  common 
origin,  of  common  language  and  culture, 
both  democracies  and  both  justice  loving, 
can  come  most  perilously  near  to  war  with 
each  other  over  small  as  well  as  over  large 
affairs  of  unexpected  origin.  Only  by  ex 
ercising  patience,  intelligence,  tolerance, 
and  goodwill  have  they  avoided  repeated 
wars  during  the  century  of  peace.  Had 
but  one  of  such  necessary  attributes 
been  wanting,  war  in  many  instances 
would  have  resulted.  May  we  not  ration 
ally  deduce  from  this  record  that  where 
such  attributes  are  in  part  or  in  whole 
lacking  between  two  or  more  nations, 
peace  will  not  endure  if  the  self-interest 
of  but  one  calls  for  war? 

There  is  yet  a  deeper  lesson.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  essence 
emanating  from  England,  caused  a  lim 
ited  co-operation  between  America  and 


Conclusions  69 

Britain.  The  mere  statement  of  their 
common  purpose  stopped  the  proposed 
aggression  of  the  "Holy  Alliance";  and 
ever  since,  by  the  dictum  of  the  English- 
speaking  peoples,  the  Western  Hemisphere 
has  been  kept  safe  as  the  nursery  for 
democracies. 

Again  the  autocracies  of  Prussian  Ger 
many  and  Austria,  they  of  the  "Holy 
Alliance,"  have  assaulted  democracy. 
They  thought  Britain  and  America  di 
vided  today  just  as  the  "Holy  Al 
liance"  thought  they  were  in  1823.  But 
America  has  joined  those  whose  valiant 
efforts  have  kept  the  fight  for  the  most 
part  in  Europe.  She  has  realized  that  it 
is  not  a  "European  War"  but  entirely 
a  war  of  the  aggression  of  the  greatest 
medieval  autocracy  of  Europe  against 
modern  democracy.  After  nearly  a  cen 
tury,  the  prophetic  words  of  our  great 
democrat,  Thomas  Jefferson,  have  come 
true.  With  Britain,  we  are  "fighting 
once  more  side  by  side  in  the  same 
cause  .  .  .  not  her  war,  but  ours." 


70  Britain  and  America 

Through  the  red  fog  of  this  war  the 
future  is  clouded;  we  cannot  define  the 
details;  only  the  great  racial  and  political 
masses  of  the  world  beyond  the  war  are 
discernible. 

But  looming  through  the  fog  we  see 
our  need  of  the  unity  of  the  English- 
speaking  peoples. 


PARTIAL  LIST  OF  CITATIONS  FROM 
AUTHORITIES  ALMOST  EXCLUSIVELY 
AMERICAN  BEARING  UPON  THE  PRE 
CEDING  TEXT 


Page  5.  ENGLAND'S  PART  IN  THE  DISCOVERY 
OF  AMERICA 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  27-28. 

MATTHEW  PAGE  ANDREWS,  History  of  the 

United  States,  pp.  1-4. 

SINCLAIR    KENNEDY,    The    Pan-Angles,    A 

Consideration  of  the  Federation  of  the  Seven 

English-Speaking  Nations,  pp.  6-7. 

Page  5.  DATES  OF  THE  FOUNDING  OF  THE 
COLONIES. 

Virginia,  1607;  Plymouth,  1620;  Massachu 
setts,  1630;  Maryland,  1634;  Connecticut 
and  New  Haven,  1635-38;  Providence  and 
Rhode  Island,  1636;  The  Carolinas,  1663; 
New  York,  1664;  New  Jersey,  1664;  Pennsyl 
vania,  1681;  Georgia,  1732. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  xxvii. 

Page  6.  ANGLO-CELTIC  MORE  ACCURATELY 
DESCRIPTIVE  OF  THE  RACE  THAN 
ANGLO-SAXON. 

A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  History  of  England,  pp. 

14-15- 

W.  H.  BABCOCK,  "  The  Races  of  Britain, "  in 
Scientific  Monthly,  February,  1916,  p.  165. 
W.  H.  BABCOCK,  loc.  cit,,  pp.  168-169. 

71 


72      A  Partial  List  of  Citations 


Page  6.     TYPES     OF     GOVERNMENT      IN      THE 

COLONIES. 

ALBERT   BUSHNELL   HART,    Actual   Govern 
ment,  p.  43. 

Page    7.     RELATIONS  BETWEEN  COLONIAL  GOV 
ERNORS  AND  ASSEMBLIES. 
SYDNEY  GEORGE  FISHER,  The  Struggle  for 
American  Independence,  vol.  i.,  pp.  6-7. 
HENRY  JONES  FORD,  The  Rise  and  Growth  of 
American  Politics,  p.  v. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  Actual  Government, 
p.  41. 

Page  7-  ORIGINS  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  GOV 
ERNMENT. 

ALBERT   BUSHNELL   HART,   Actual  Govern 
ment,  pp.  39-41. 

A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  History  of  England,  pp. 
138-139. 

Page    7-      GROWTH  OF  REPRESENTATIVE    GOV 
ERNMENT  IN  AMERICA. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  141-142. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL   HART,   Actual  Govern 
ment,  p.  41. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 
and  Greater  Britain,  pp.  746-747. 

Page  8.  EXTENT  OF  THE  FRANCHISE  IN  ENG 
LAND  AND  IN  THE  AMERICAN 
COLONIES. 

Prof.  C.  A.   BEARD,  American  Government 

and  Politics,  pp.  8-10,  Macmillan. 

A.  E.  McKiNLEY,  The  Suffrage  Franchise  in 

the  Thirteen  English  Colonies,  University  of 

Pennsylvania  Publications,  pp.  208  ff . 

Op.  cit.,  p.  487. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 

and  Greater  Britain,  p.  747. 

J.  P.  GORDY,  A  History  of  the  United  States, 

P.  134- 


A  Partial  List  of  Citations      73 


.     GEORGE  HI'S  IDEA  OF  KINGSHIP. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 

and  Greater  Britain,  pp.  739-740. 

ADAMS  and   TRENT,  History  of  the   United 

States,  p.  89. 

JOHN  RICHARD  GREEN,  A  Short  History  of 

the  English  People,  p.  761. 

Page   9.      EARLY   IDEAS   OF   COLONIZATION. 

FREDERIC  AUSTIN  OGG,  Economic  Develop 
ment  of  Modern  Europe,  pp.  75-79. 
ARTHUR  L\ON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 
and  Greater  Britain,  pp.  747-748. 
SINCLAIR   KENNEDY,    The  Pan- Angles,    A 
Consideration  of  the  Federation  of  the  Seven 
English- Speaking  Nations,  pp.  184-186. 

Page  10.  LACK  OF  UNITY  AMONG  THE  COLONIES. 
HENRY  JONES  FORD,  The  Rise  and  Growth  of 
American  Politics,  pp.  2-3. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  a  History,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  4-5.  The 
American  Revolution,  1776—1783,  by  CLAUDE 
HALSTEAD  VAN  TYNE. 

CARL    LOTUS    BECKER,   Beginnings  of  the 
American  People,  pp.  163,  202-204,  212. 
MATTHEW  PAGE  ANDREWS,  History  of  the 
United  States,  pp.  73-74. 
SINCLAIR  KENNEDY,  The  Pan- Angles,  p.  186. 

Page   ii.    BEGINNINGS  OF  DISCONTENT  IN  THE 

COLONIES. 

HENRY  JONES  FORD,  The  Rise  and  Growth  of 
American  Politics,  pp.  12-13. 
A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  History  of  England,  pp. 
160-161. 

Page    12.     DEVELOPMENT   OF    DISCONTENT    IN 

THE  COLONIES. 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  6-7.  The 
American  Revolution,  1776-1783,  by  CLAUDE 
HALSTEAD  VAN  TYNE.  Also  vol.  ix.,  pp. 


74      A  Partial  List  of  Citations 


H.  L.  OSGOOD,  England  and  the  Colonies,  in 

Pol.  Sc.  Quar.,  vol.  ii.,  1887,  p.  467. 

SIM  ONE,  Social  Forces  in  American  History, 

pp.  63-64. 

SYDNEY  GEORGE  FISHER,   The  Struggle  for 

American  Independence,  vol.  i.,  p.  84. 

CARL    LOTUS   BECKER,    Beginnings   of  the 

American  People,  pp.  213-214. 

Page    13.   TREND   TOWARD    SEPARATION  FROM 

ENGLAND. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 
and  Greater  Britain,  p.  750. 
A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  History  of  England,  p. 
161. 

CARL  LOTUS  BECKER.  Beginnings  of  the 
American  People,  pp.  239-240. 

Page    13.    A  THIRD  OF  THE  COLONISTS  FAVOR 

SEPARATION. 

SYDNEY  GEORGE  FISHER,  The  Struggle  for 
American  Independence,  vol.  i.,  pp.  245-247. 
C.  A.  BEARD'S  Review  of  The  Colonial  Mer 
chants  and  the  American  Revolution,  by 
ARTHUR  M.  SCHLESINGER,  New  York: 
Columbia  University  Press.  New  Republic, 
April  6,  1918. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  174. 
CARL    LOTUS    BECKER,    Beginnings    of   the 
American  People,  pp.  248-249. 

Page     14.    THE    DECLARATION    OF    INDEPEND 
ENCE. 

SYDNEY  GEORGE  FISHER,  The  Struggle  for 
American  Independence,  vol.  i.,  pp.  206,  208. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  ix.:  The  American 
Revolution,  1776-1783,  by  CLAUDE  HAL- 
STEAD  VAN  TYNE,  pp.  83-85. 
FISHER,  The  True  History  of  the  American 
Revolution,  p.  171. 

CARL  LOTUS  BECKER,  Beginnings  of  the 
American  People,  pp.  251-252. 


A  Partial  List  of  Citations      75 


Page  15.    THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION. 

SYDNEY  GEORGE  FISHER,  The  Struggle  for 
American  Independence,  vol.  i.,  pp.  537-538. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  ix. :  The  American 
Revolution,  1776-1783,  CLAUDE  HALSTEAD 
VAN  TYNE,  pp.  227-229. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  x.:  The  Con 
federation  and  the  Constitution,  783-1789, 
by  ANDREW  CUNNINGHAM  MCLAUGHLIN, 
PP-  4-5- 

Page  16.  REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  IN 
ENGLAND  AFTER  THE  AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION. 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  ix. :  The  American 
Revolution,  1776-1783,  by  CLAUDE  HAL- 
STEAD  VAN  TYNE,  pp.  12-13. 
CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES,  A  Political  and  Social 
History  of  Modern  Europe,  vol.  i.,  pp.  433- 

435- 

CHARLES  SEIGNOBOS,  A  Political  History  of 

Europe  since  1814,  pp.  15-18. 

Page  17.    RESULTS  IN  ENGLAND  OF  THE  AMERI 
CAN  REVOLUTION. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 

and  Greater  Britain,  p.  781. 

JOHN  RICHARD  GREEN,  A  Short  History  of 

the  English  People,  pp.  789-790. 

CHARLES  SEIGNOBOS,  A  Political  History  of 

Europe  since  1814,  pp.  13-14. 

ROBINSON  AND  BEARD,  The  Development  of 

Modern  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  195;  vol.  ii.,  pp. 

186-187. 

CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES,  A  Political  and  Social 

History  of  Modern  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  433. 

SINCLAIR  KENNEDY,    The  Pan- Angles,  pp. 

76-80. 


76      A  Partial  List  of  Citations 


A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  History  of  England,  pp. 

168-169. 

GEORGE  Louis  BEER,  The  English- Speaking 

Peoples,  pp.  41,  54. 

Page  19.  RESULTS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLU 
TION  ON  THE  OTHER  ENGLISH 
SPEAKING  NATIONS. 

JOHN  RICHARD  GREEN,  A  Short  History  of 
the  English  People,  pp.  786-787. 
CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES,  A  Political  and  Social 
History  of  Modern  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  337. 

Page  20.  EARLY  LACK  OF  UNITY  AMONG  THE 
STATES. 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  216,  231-232. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  218. 

Page  20.    INTERSTATE  TARIFFS. 

MATTHEW  PAGE  ANDREWS,  History  of  the 

United  States,  p.  150. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  238-239. 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  231-232. 

Page  20.  VIOLATIONS  OF  ANGLO-AMERICAN 
TREATY  BY  THE  INDIVIDUAL 
STATES. 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  x. :  The  Confedera 
tion  and  the  Constitution,  1783-1789,  by 
ANDREW  CUNNINGHAM  MCLAUGHLIN,  pp. 
105-106. 

ARTHUR  LYON  CROSS,  A  History  of  England 
and  Greater  Britain,  p.  781. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  228-229. 


A  Partial  List  of  Citations      77 


Page   22.      THE    AMERICAN     CONSTITUTION     A 
PRACTICAL  COMPROMISE. 

MATTHEW  PAGE  ANDREWS.  History  of  the 
United  States,  pp.  154-155. 
MAX  FARRAND,  The  Framing  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  p.  206. 

Page  23.    AMERICA'S  HASTY  ADOPTION  OF  BRIT- 
ISH  SEAMEN. 

HENRY  ADAMS,   A   History  of  the    United 
States,  1801-17,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  334~335- 
McM  ASTER,  A  History  of  the  People  of  the 
United  States,  vol.  iii.,  p.  243. 

Page  24.    BRITISH  IMPRESSMENT  OF  AMERICAN 
SEAMEN. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History 

of  the  United  States,  pp.  306-307. 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  History  of  the  United 

States,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  367-368. 

JOHN  BASSETT  MOORE,   The  Principles  of 

American  Diplomacy,  p.  113. 

Page  25.     BRITISH  AND  FRENCH  RESTRICTION 
ON  AMERICAN  COMMERCE. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  308. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  323. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  362-363. 

Page  26.     BRITISH   ATTEMPTS   TO  AVOID  WAR 
WITH  AMERICA. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  319-320. 
HENRY  ADAMS,  History  of  the  United  States  of 
America  during  the  Second  Administration  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  317-318,  331- 
332,  and  347. 


78      A  Partial  List  of  Citations 

Page  27.     THE  WAR  OF  1812. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  8-10. 
MATTHEW  PAGE  ANDREWS,  History  of  the 
United  State.*,  pp.  189,  190-191,  197,  199. 
EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  338. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  336-337- 

Page  28.    THE  PEACE  OP  GHENT. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  7-8. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  334. 

Page  31.    ARISTOCRATIC  CONTROL  OF  PARLIA 
MENT. 

ROBINSON  AND  BEARD,  The  Development  of 

Modern  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  201. 

C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1815,  pp.  409- 

410. 

Page  31.    BRITISH    OPINIONS    OF     AMERICANS 
IN  1815. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  xxii.-xxiii., 
and  pp.  6-7. 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  330-331. 

Page  32.    DISPUTE  AND  AGREEMENT  REGARD 
ING  THE  GREAT  LAKES. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  13-18. 

Page  33.    SETTLEMENT      OF      THE      FISHERIES 
CONTROVERSY. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  23-28. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  347-348. 


A  Partial  List  of  Citations     79 


Page   33.     SETTLEMENT     OF     THE     CANADIAN 
BOUNDARY. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  131-133. 

Page   34.     THE    ARBUTHNOT-AMBRISTER     CON 
TROVERSY. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  35-39. 
JOHN  SPENCER -BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  368-370. 

Page  35  to  39.    BRITISH  ORIGIN  OF  THE  MONROE 
DOCTRINE. 

GEORGE  Louis  BEER,  The  English- Speaking 
Peoples,  pp.  75-79- 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  48-55. 
C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1815,  pp.  64-65. 

Page  40.     INDUSTRIAL   REVOLUTION    IN    ENG 
LAND. 

ROBINSON  AND  BEARD,  The  Development  of 

Modern  Europe,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  323-324. 

C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1815,  pp.  406- 

407. 

Page  40.     LIBERAL  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORMS. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  62-70. 
C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1813,  p.  438. 
CHARLES  SEIGNOBOS,  A  Political  History  of 
Europe  Since  1814,  pp.  36,  37. 

Page  41.    THE  CAROLINE  INCIDENT. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  93-96. 
ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  The  American 
Nation:  A  History,  vol.  xvii.,  Westward 
Extension,  1841-1850,  by  GEORGE  PIERCE 
GARRISON,  pp.  68-70. 


8o      A  Partial  List  of  Citations 


Page  42.    THE  MAINE  BOUNDARY  DISPUTE. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 

Empire  and  the    United  States,  pp.    11-12, 

106-109. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History 

of  the  United  States,  pp.  437-438. 

Page  43-    THE  OREGON  BOUNDARY. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  445-446. 

EDWARD  CHANNING,  A  Students'  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  423-425. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 

Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  132-133. 

Page  45-    THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  438-439. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  135-137. 

Page  47.     GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  THE  OUTBREAK 

OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 
JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  p.  522. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING.  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  203-208. 
EPHRAIM   D.   ADAMS,    The  American   Civil 
War  from  the  British    View-Point,   in  the 
History   Teacher's  Magazine,   May,    1918, 
pp.  257-258. 

Page  48.    THE  TRENT  AFFAIR. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  522-523. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  210-218. 

Page  50.    THE  CONFEDERATE  BORDERS. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  523-524. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  218-220. 


A  Partial  List  of  Citations     81 


Page    52.     BRITISH-AMERICAN  READJUSTMENTS 
AFTER  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 

Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  220-221, 

249-259. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 

the  United  States,  pp.  670-674. 

Page  «.     FENIAN  DIFFICULTIES  AND  CITIZEN 
SHIP. 

C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1815,  PP-  47°~ 

471. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 

Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  223-227. 

Pages  57  to  60.     THE  VENEZUELAN  BOUNDARY 
DISPUTE. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States,  pp.  777-780. 
WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  300-317. 

Page  61.     A  BRITISH-AMERICAN  ARBITRATION 
TREATY  PROPOSED. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  318-320; 
335-336. 

Page  61.     GREAT  BRITAIN   AND   THE  SPANISH 
WAR. 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  A  Short  History 
of  the  United  States,  p.  792. 
GEORGE  Louis  BEER,  The  English- Speaking 
Peoples,   Their  Future  Relations  and  Joint 
International  Obligations,  pp.  102-103. 

Page  62.     RECENT     BRITISH-AMERICAN     CON 
CORD. 

WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD  DUNNING,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States,  pp.  332-333; 
369-370. 


A  PARTIAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  INDICATING 
SOME  OF  THE  MAIN  SOURCES  OF 
INFORMATION  USED  IN  PREPARING 
THE  TEXT 


ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS.  Massachusetts,  Its  Historians 
and  Its  History. 

Transatlantic  Historical  Solidarity. 

ADAMS,  E.  D.  British  Interests  and  Activities  in  Texas, 
1838-1846. 

The  Power  of  Ideals  in  American  History. 

ADAMS,  HENRY.     A  History  of  the  United  States. 

ALTSCHUL,  CHARLES.  The  American  Revolution  in  our 
School  Textbooks. 

ALVORD,  C.  W.     The  Mississippi  Valley  in  British  Politics. 

ANDREWS,  CHARLES.     Colonial  Selj ^-Government. 

ANDREWS,  MATTHEW  PAGE.  A  Brief  History  of  the  United 
States. 

BABCOCK,  K.  C.     The  Rise  of  American  Nationality. 

BABC9CK,  W.  H.  "  The  Races  of  Great  Britain, "  in  Scien 
tific  Monthly,  February,  1916. 

BALDWIN,  S.  M.  "American  Law,"  in  nth  Ed.  Encyclo 
pedia  Britannica. 

BASSETT,  J.  S.    A  Short  History  of  the  United  States. 

•  The  Federalist  System. 

Th   Middle  Group  of  American  Historians. 

BEARD,  C.  A.  An  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

American  Government  and  Politics. 

The  Economic  Origins  of  Je/ersonian  Democracy. 

BEACKER,  CARL.     The  Beginnings  of  the  American  People. 

BEER,  GEORGE  Louis.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England 
Toward  the  American  Colonies. 

The  English-Speaking  Peoples. 

The  Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System. 


A  Partial  Bibliography          83 


BOGART,  E.  L.     Economic  History  of  the  United  States. 
BURGESS,  J.  W.     Political  Science  and  Comparative  Con 
stitutional  Law. 
CHANNING,  EDWARD.     History  of  the  United  States. 

The  Jeffersonian  System. 

CHEYNEY,  E.  P.     The  European  Background  of  American 

History. 
COMAN,    KATHERINE.     Industrial  History   of  the    United 

States. 

CROSS,  A.  L.     A  History  of  England  and  Greater  Britain. 
CURTIS,  LIONEL.     The  Problem  of  the  Commonwealth 
DAVIS,  A.  M.     "The  Indians  and  the  Border  Warfare  of 

the  Revolution, "  in  Winsor,  A  Narrative  and  Critical 

History  of  America,  vol.  vi.,  chap.  viii. 
DUNNING,  W.  A.     A  History  of  Political  Theories  from 

Luther  to  Montesquieu. 

The  British  Empire  and  the  United  States. 

FISHER,   SYDNEY   GEORGE.     Tne   Struggle  for   American 

Independence. 

The  True  History  of  the  American  Revolution. 

FLICK,  A.  C.     Loyalism  in  New  York. 

FOSTER,  J.  W.     A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy. 

FRIEDENWALD,  HERBERT.    The  Declaration  of  Independence. 

GARRISON,  G.  P.     Westward  Extension. 

GIDDINGS,  F.  H.     The  Western  Hemisphere  in  the  World  of 

Tomorrow. 
GREEN,  E.  B.     Provincial  America. 

The  Provincial  Governor. 

HANEY,  LEWIS.     The  History  of  Economic  Thought. 
HART,  A.  B.     Actual  Government. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

HAYES,  C.  J.     A  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern 

Europe. 

British  Social  Politics. 

HAZEN,  C.  D.     Europe  Since  1815. 
HOBHOUSE,  L.  T.     Democracy  and  Reaction. 
HOBSON,  J.  A.     Imperialism. 

The  Evolution  of  Modern  Capitalism. 

HOSMER,  J.  K.     The  Appeal  to  Arms. 

HOWARD,  GEORGE  E.     The  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution. 

JAMESON,   J.    F.     The  History  of  Historical    Writing  in 

America. 

JOHNSON,  ALLEN.      Union  and  Democracy. 
KENNEDY,  SINCLAIR.     The  Pan- Angles. 


84          A  Partial  Bibliography 


LATANE,  J.  H.     America  as  a  World  Power. 

LODGE,  HENRY  CABOT.     Historical  Studies. 

The  English  Colonies  in  America. 

MAHAN,  A.  T.  The  Influence  of  Sea  Power  upon  the  French 
Revolution  and  Empire. 

MCLAUGHLIN,  ANDREW  C.  The  Confederation  and  the 
Constitution. 

McMASTER,  J.  B.  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States. 

MERRIAM,  C.  E.     A  History  of  American  Political  Theories. 

MILNER,  LORD.     The  Nation  and  the  Empire. 

MOORE,  JOHN  BASSETT.  The  Principles  of  American 
Diplomacy. 

MUIR,  RAMSEY.     The  Expansion  of  Europe. 

OGG,  F.  A.     The  Economic  Development  of  Modern  Europe. 

OLIVER,  F.  S.  Alexander  Hamilton:  An  Essay  on  Ameri 
can  Union. 

OSGOOD,  H.  L.  "England  and  the  Colonies, "  in  Pol.  Sci. 
Quar.,  vol.  ii.,  1887. 

The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

POLLARD,  A.  F.     The  History  of  England. 

POWNALL,  CHARLES  A.  W.  Thomas  Pownall,  M.  P. 
F.  R.  S.,  Governor  of  Massachusettes  Bay,  Author  of 
the  Letters  of  Junius,  with  a  Supplement  Comparing 
the  Colonies  of  Kings  George  III  and  Edward  VII. 

RHODES,  J.  F.  History  of  the  United  States  from  the 
Compromise  of  1850. 

ROBINSON  AND  BEARD.  The  Development  of  Modern 
Europe. 

SCHERGER,  G.  L.     The  Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty. 

SCHMOLLER,  GUSTAV.     The  Mercantile  System. 

SCHOULER,  JAMES.     A  History  of  the  United  States. 

SCHUYLER,  R.  L.  "British  Imperial  Policy, "  in  Columbia 
University  Quarterly,  June,  1917. 

SEELEY,  SIR  J.  R.     The  Expansion  of  England. 

SIMONS.     Social  Forces  in  American  History. 

SLATER,  GILBERT.     The  Making  of  Modern  England. 

SMITH,  MUNROE.     Jurisprudence,  a  Lecture. 

THURSTON,  R.  H.     The  Growth  of  the  Steam  Engine. 

TURNER,  F.  J.     The  Rise  of  the  New  West. 

VEBLEN,  THORNSTEIN.  Imperial  Germany  and  the  Indus 
trial  Revolution. 

VAN  TYNE,  C.  H.     The  American  Revoluton. 

The  Loyalists  in  the  American  Revolution. 


A  Partial  Bibliography          85 

WALKER,  MRS.  MABEL  G.     "Sir  John  Johnson,  Loyalist, " 

in  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review  for  December. 
WINSOR,  JUSTIN.     Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America. 
WOODBURN,  J.  A.     The  Causes  of  the  American  Revolution. 

I 


The  War  and 

Humanity 

By 
James  M.  Beck 

A  Notable  Sequel  to  "The  Evidence  in  the 
Case" 

"  Mr.  Beck's  volume  was  a  classic  the  moment  it  ap 
peared.  We  know  of  no  more  logical  and  lucid  discussion 
of  the  essential  facts  and  problems  of  the  great  war,  nor 
any  more  truly,  consistently,  and  even  vigorously  Amer 
ican  in  its  spirit.  We  should  be  well  content  to  let  it 
stand,  if  there  were  no  other,  as  the  authentic  expres 
sion  of  the  highest  aspirations,  the  broadest  and  most 
penetrating  vision,  and  the  most  profound  convictions  of 
the  American  nation  on  matters  which  have  never  been 
surpassed  and  have  only  twice  been  rivalled  in  vital  in 
terests  in  all  our  history." — New  Yofk  Tribune. 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT'S  OPINION 

"It  is  the  kind  of  a  book,  which  every  self-respecting 
American,  who  loves  his  country,  should  read." 

Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition 
Nearly  400  pages.     $150  net.     By  mail  $1.65 

At  All  Booksellers 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  London 


The  Evidence  in 
the  Case 

A  Discussion  of  the  Moral  Responsibility  for  the  War  of 

1914,  as  Disclosed  by  the  Diplomatic  Records 

of  England,  Germany,   Russia,  France 

Austria,  and  Belgium 

By 
JAMES  M.  BECK,  LL.D. 

Late  Assistant  Attorney-General  of  the  U.  S. 
With  an  Introduction  by 

The  Hon.  JOSEPH  H.  CHOATE 

Late  U.  S.  Ambassador  to  Great  Britain 

15th  Printing— Raised  Edition  v/Uh  much  Additional 

Material 
12°.     Over  280  pages.    $1.25  net.    By  mail,  $135 

"  Mr.  Beck's  book  is  so  extremely  interesting 
from  beginning  to  end  that  it  is  difficult  when 
once  begun  to  lay  it  down  and  break  off  the 
reading,  and  we  are  not  surprised  to  hear  not 
only  that  it  has  had  an  immense  sale  in  England 
and  America,  but  that  its  translation  into  the 
languages  of  the  other  nations  of  Europe  has 
been  demanded." — Hon.  Joseph  H.  Choate  in 
The  New  York  Times. 

New  York        C.  P.  Putnam's  Sons  London 


France,  England,  and 
European  Democracy 

1215-1915 

An    Historical     Survey    of     the     Principles 
Underlying  the  Entente  Cordiale 

By 

Charles  Cestre 

Profecseur  a  la  Faculte  dec  Lettres  de  Bordeaux 

8°.    $2.50  net.    By  mail,  $2.70 

A  clever  historical  survey  covering  the 
relations  between  the  two  countries  con 
sidered  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  twentieth 
centuries.  It  presents,  furthermore,  an  able 
summary  of  the  ideals  of  England  and  the 
work  she  has  tried  to  accomplish.  The 
French  author  is  a  graduate  of  Harvard  as 
well  as  a  Docteur  des  Lettres  of  Paris. 
Translated  by  Professor  Leslie  M.  Turner  of 
the  University  of  California. 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  London 


SEA  POWER  AND 
FREEDOM 


A  Historical  Study 
Gerard  Fiennes 


Introduction  by  Bradley  Allen  Fiske 
Rear    Admiral,    U.  S.   N.     (Retired) 


8°.    32  Illustrations.     Price,  $3.50 

THE  host  of  readers  who  have  absorbed 
Admiral  Mahan's  famous  works  will  wel 
come  this  volume,  for  by  a  review  of  naval 
history  prior  to  1660  and  subsequent  to 
1783,  the  limiting  dates  of  Admiral  Mahan's 
investigation,  it  confirms  the  importance  of 
the  role  played  by  sea  power  in  the  affairs  of 
the  world. 

The  volume  carries  the  reader  from  the 
earliest  recorded  maritime  expedition  —  that 
of  the  last  Pharaoh  of  the  Eleventh  Dynasty 
—  to  the  great  and  minor  naval  actions  of 
the  present  war. 

The  author  shows  that  the  possession  of 
sea  power  depends  on  a  national  character 
which  is,  in  itself,  antagonistic  to  despotic 
rule. 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  London 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


NOV28  1966 


~ 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-50m-12,'64(F772s4)458 


358598 

E183.8 
History  circle.         G? 

British-American      H6? 
discords  &  concords. 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


